From kwade at redhat.com  Mon Sep  3 01:40:14 2007
From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade)
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:40:14 -0700
Subject: Live Fedora start page proposal
In-Reply-To: <1188340623.32095.32.camel@shuttle>
References: <91fcd7990708280707g4d00ca82q7059f6579c33747@mail.gmail.com>
	<1188310538.2186.108.camel@cutter>
	<91fcd7990708280753k1a0c5170ubb9b85ef825913ec@mail.gmail.com>
	<1188313239.2186.115.camel@cutter> <1188340623.32095.32.camel@shuttle>
Message-ID: <1188783614.1394.16.camel@erato.phig.org>

On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 23:37 +0100, Dimitris Glezos wrote:

> +1 for using the homepage as a gateway to useful information -- that was
> our purpose when we decided to put content on it. Let's just make sure
> that some offline content will be available for people with low network
> accessibility. Installing Fedora on a laptop and having the browser show
> nothing because the wireless hasn't been setup yet, won't make a good
> first impression.

+1

A blend of the current content (farther down the page) with the search
at the top would be good.  It could be done as an <iframe> so when it
can fail the search box offline in a graceful way.

- Karsten
-- 
        Karsten Wade              ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
    quaid.fedorapeople.org        |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\



From kwade at redhat.com  Mon Sep  3 01:44:33 2007
From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade)
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:44:33 -0700
Subject: Live Fedora start page proposal
In-Reply-To: <1188569637.27085.410.camel@cutter>
References: <91fcd7990708280707g4d00ca82q7059f6579c33747@mail.gmail.com>
	<46D43A61.9060809@fedoraproject.org>
	<91fcd7990708280826g78f0f5bal9963709a371acfb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<604aa7910708281034w32c2a99xc67e1d3bc14b836c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1188322672.27085.5.camel@cutter>  <46D81B56.7000809@redhat.com>
	<1188569637.27085.410.camel@cutter>
Message-ID: <1188783873.1394.19.camel@erato.phig.org>

On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 10:13 -0400, seth vidal wrote:

> Maybe, I'm thinking the website team should probably determine what's on
> the page.

We could work closely with Creative Commons in an editorial sense; get
their help to find and highlight open content.

- Karsten
-- 
        Karsten Wade              ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
    quaid.fedorapeople.org        |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\



From kwade at redhat.com  Mon Sep  3 01:52:43 2007
From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade)
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:52:43 -0700
Subject: Live Fedora start page proposal
In-Reply-To: <91fcd7990708280831i46fb9cb1i616991817aa650f1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <91fcd7990708280707g4d00ca82q7059f6579c33747@mail.gmail.com>
	<1188314113.17567.29.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<91fcd7990708280831i46fb9cb1i616991817aa650f1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1188784363.1394.26.camel@erato.phig.org>

On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 11:31 -0400, Donald Fischer wrote:
> On 8/28/07, Jeremy Katz <katzj at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >  * More useful to users.  The vast majority of the time when Fedora
> > > users are launching a new browser, they're looking to do something on
> > > the web, not to read the operating system release notes.  Thus, we've
> > > proposed to put search front-and-center.
> >
> > The current default page has quite a bit more than just the release
> > notes.  And I think that continuing to provide some of that high-profile
> > linking to community sites and documentation is important.  Yes, they're
> > in the toolbar, but the fact that they're in the page and with more
> > words than just "Planet Fedora?  What's a planet?" is pretty
> > important.
> >
> > That said, there's no reason we couldn't do that in the online page
> > which also has search.
> 
> Yup, I think there's a good discussion to be had here on what exactly
> should be on the page.  Personally I'm a fan of keeping it simple, but
> I recognize that others will have good input.

Yep, and you know I always make things too complex. :)  I think this is
where a good designer comes in and finds a way to tuck a set of useful
links like have appeared in the default home page the last few releases,
but not make them overly complex.   To be honest, most of the content on
that current page could be vaporized and the links used in a clever
navigation method.  Then scroll down and see the needs-more-words "Other
Resources".  Depending onhow it is done, we could use the current
'/cvs/docs/homepage' module and just rework the layout; this lets us
start with ~70% already localized content.

- Karsten
-- 
        Karsten Wade              ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
    quaid.fedorapeople.org        |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\



From poelstra at redhat.com  Wed Sep  5 00:00:34 2007
From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra)
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:00:34 -0700
Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2007-AUG-28
Message-ID: <46DDF1A2.7020006@redhat.com>

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2007-08-28

== Roll Call ==

Attendees: Max Spevack, Seth Vidal, John Poelstra, Steve Dickson, Bill Nottingham, Matt Domsch, Jef Spaleta, and Dennis Gilmore

Regrets: Chris Blizzard, Chris Aillon, Karsten Wade

== Last Week's Followup ==
 * Funding came through for infrastructure
 * Max has a meeting scheduled with Will to talk about a new bugzilla instances and future QA plans
 * RHEL management pleased with the way F8 feature planning and Fedora/RHEL communication has been

== Fedora Front Page ==
 * More discussion following from fedora-advisory-list about Google search tied into front page
 * Donald Fischer proposed the google-based start page for Fedora 8
    * Previous times when this has been proposed, it has been far too close to GA in order to make it happen.
    * While it was very close to Test2 and Feature freeze, it is still far enough away from GA that we think it's worth making happen for Fedora 8.
    * Possible revenue source for Fedora, though no one has any idea if the amount is material
    * Donald will share financial information with the Fedora Project Leader (FPL) on a monthly basis
 * Chris Aillon to take care of the Firefox side
 * Karsten will enumerate Fedora Documentation requirments and Max will check with Paul Frields 
 * Need someone to take care of epiphany and konqueror



From fedora at leemhuis.info  Wed Sep  5 05:23:28 2007
From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis)
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:23:28 +0200
Subject: mailinglists reorganization (was: Re: This list isn't working out.
 Or, why do we have fedora-devel and fedora-maintainers)
In-Reply-To: <200709042218.03534.opensource@till.name>
References: <645d17210708211029y4717366pf927665eb37ec8e6@mail.gmail.com>	<20070821132017.3fb1500f@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>	<46DDBAA6.6060608@redhat.com>
	<200709042218.03534.opensource@till.name>
Message-ID: <46DE3D50.5070302@leemhuis.info>

On 04.09.2007 22:18, Till Maas wrote:
> On Di September 4 2007, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> 
>> Apparently, asking this list was the wrong way to get things done.  How
>> do we really do this?  Does this need to be proposed to some group?
>> Does this need to come up for vote at some meeting?  How do we actually
>> cut the life support here?
> 
> Afaik should FESCO decision and knurd know more, because he proposed a 
> reorganization of the mailinglists a long time ago.

Well, the last time was about six weeks ago on fab-list. But I stopped
to work further on this (and told the board about it in private) after
that because

- the board simply made decisions before the proposal actually was
discussed in public on fedora-devel-list. This is a community project
and if the Board or another Committee makes decisions before the
community discussed something there is something totally wrong IMHO

- many people from FAB (mainly Board or FESCO members) wanted different
things -- each time the proposal was discussed it was directed into a
different direction by different people, killing ideas that were agreed
on in earlier discussion. Such a moving target is hard to hit (I knew it
would be hard to get the community to accept the reorganization, but I
didn't expect the Board/FAB to say "a" two days ago, "b" today and "c
(which doesn't work together with 'a')" the next day -- I'm not willing
to invest my spare time for such a moving target)

- I got the impression that the Board only wanted to pamper over some
annoyances instead of fixing the underlying problems, which is not what
I wanted

- some more, minor reasons

> It was delayed because 
> someone wanted to combine this with moving to @fedoraproject.org adresses / 
> an own mailserver for Fedora, but now there is no hardware available for 
> this.

Well, the more important reasons was: F7 was more important back then
and bound all energy, so I didn't drive it further.

CU
knurd

P.S.:Yes, if you read carefully you'll see lot of frustration between
the words. Contributing to the Fedora project has become way more harder
over the past months and "what contributors and users want" IMHO is not
getting enough attention. Getting something done without investing much
time or being in the Committee that makes the final decisions is way to
hard in a lot of areas, as the Committee-Members use their power way to
much (yes, I realize that all of this was already becoming a problem
when I was FESCo chair; I tried to work against that back then, but I
know I could have done better).

IOW: I think I'm on my way out of Fedora slowly if it doesn't get better
again. Sure, some of the things are "growing pains", but they seem to
not be addressed to me.


P.P.S.: I'm willing to work again on the mailing list reorganization if
it's getting discussed on fedora-devel and Board and FESCO members raise
any concerns there not after that discussion in their meetings when the
stuff comes up for votings  (e.g. no freaking next-to-endless-loops like
"foo> I had not time to participate in the public discussion, but I
totally don't like (a part of it|the whole idea)" "chair> okay, then we
don't decide on it and move the discussion back to the list and request
that foo's concerns get addressed")

/me now really need to go to work -- lots to do today...



From mspevack at redhat.com  Mon Sep 10 16:26:50 2007
From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:26:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: working on an inventory of fedora custom spins
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709101226190.4930@localhost.localdomain>

Please help.  That is all.  :)

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CustomSpins

Thanks,
Max



From kanarip at kanarip.com  Tue Sep 11 08:35:05 2007
From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:35:05 +0200
Subject: working on an inventory of fedora custom spins
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709101226190.4930@localhost.localdomain>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709101226190.4930@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46E65339.1040301@kanarip.com>

Max Spevack wrote:
> Please help.  That is all.  :)
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CustomSpins
> 
> Thanks,
> Max
> 

Where would I put the Fedora spins at http://fedora.kanarip.com/torrents ?

They're all off the release tree (e.g. Everything/), so no respin or 
customize tricks whatsoever.

-- 
Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

--
http://www.kanarip.com/
RHCE, LPIC-2, MCP, CCNA
C6B0 7FB4 43E6 CDDA D258  F70B 28DE 9FDA 9342 BF08



From kanarip at kanarip.com  Tue Sep 11 12:04:19 2007
From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:04:19 +0200
Subject: working on an inventory of fedora custom spins
In-Reply-To: <46E65339.1040301@kanarip.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709101226190.4930@localhost.localdomain>
	<46E65339.1040301@kanarip.com>
Message-ID: <46E68443.9010808@kanarip.com>

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> Max Spevack wrote:
>> Please help.  That is all.  :)
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CustomSpins
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Max
>>
> 
> Where would I put the Fedora spins at http://fedora.kanarip.com/torrents ?
> 
> They're all off the release tree (e.g. Everything/), so no respin or 
> customize tricks whatsoever.
> 

Correction, there's respins now, too. The Fedora-Unity-7* spins are respins.

-- 
Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

--
http://www.kanarip.com/
RHCE, LPIC-2, MCP, CCNA
C6B0 7FB4 43E6 CDDA D258  F70B 28DE 9FDA 9342 BF08



From mspevack at redhat.com  Tue Sep 11 20:08:33 2007
From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:08:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: working on an inventory of fedora custom spins
In-Reply-To: <46E68443.9010808@kanarip.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709101226190.4930@localhost.localdomain>
	<46E65339.1040301@kanarip.com> <46E68443.9010808@kanarip.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709111605030.3927@localhost.localdomain>

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:

>> Where would I put the Fedora spins at 
>> http://fedora.kanarip.com/torrents ?
>> 
>> They're all off the release tree (e.g. Everything/), so no respin or 
>> customize tricks whatsoever.
>> 
>
> Correction, there's respins now, too. The Fedora-Unity-7* spins are respins.

I'll just add them to the page.

--M



From sundaram at fedoraproject.org  Tue Sep 11 20:15:28 2007
From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:45:28 +0530
Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2007-AUG-21
In-Reply-To: <46CF3F1A.1070304@redhat.com>
References: <46CF3427.7080507@redhat.com>	<46CF35AB.30201@fedoraproject.org>	<1187985341.31494.188.camel@erato.phig.org>	<46CF38AA.1000104@fedoraproject.org>
	<46CF3F1A.1070304@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <46E6F760.8010401@fedoraproject.org>

Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Karsten Wade wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 01:16 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>> Max was supposed to discuss with legal on codec buddy. Did that happen?
>>>
>>> What was reported in the minutes ... is what was reported.  I'm sure if
>>> there is something to discuss, we'll hear about it.
>>
>> Lack of communication in this is causing us to lose this feature for 
>> the second release after it has originally been planned. In the last 
>> board meeting, the plan was to get legal involved. We are hitting 
>> feature freeze within a week. My mails offlist have went unanswered. I 
>> would appreciate an update. Thanks.
> 
> Feature Freeze is mostly concerned with the engineering in packages in 
> Fedora.  From what I understand, the engineering work is essentially 
> done.  Totem supports fetching missing plugins, and CodecBuddy is built 
> into rawhide already under the name codeina.
> 
> Once we are satisfied that everything is clear legally (I don't know 
> status on this), we can just make the needed adjustments on the website. 

Did anyone send any questions to Legal? Did we get any answers?

Rahul



From dwmw2 at infradead.org  Wed Sep 12 15:56:46 2007
From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:56:46 +0200
Subject: Bugzilla account.
Message-ID: <1189612606.3570.50.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>

Please could someone restore my personal bugzilla account
(dwmw2 at infradead.org) to its normal functionality.

For reasons which I'll explain (in graphic detail) quite soon, my other
account is temporarily inaccessible.

Until that particular silliness is concluded, however, there's no reason
why I should not be able to use my personal bugzilla account as any
normal Fedora contributor would.

Please could the Fedora Board ensure that we re-enable my account ASAP?

Thanks.

-- 
dwmw2



From dwmw2 at infradead.org  Thu Sep 13 06:17:23 2007
From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:17:23 +0200
Subject: Bugzilla account.
In-Reply-To: <1189653854.4067.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1189612606.3570.50.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
	<1189653854.4067.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1189664243.3570.100.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>

On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 13:24 +1000, Noura Elhawary wrote:
> I see that your email account is not disabled, so has this issue been
> resolved for you? 

My bugzilla account has now been re-enabled, yes.

Thank you to whoever did that so promptly.

-- 
dwmw2



From mspevack at redhat.com  Thu Sep 13 19:56:16 2007
From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:56:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Topics in need of RH Legal
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>

Folks,

I have a meeting set up with our legal folks on Monday at 10:00 AM, 
which is a good time to present the biggest issues that we need Red 
Hat's advice and/or legal recommendation on.

They will provide me with as many answers as possible, and research any 
of the topics that are complicated enough as to not be obvious.

So let's use this thread to make a list.  I recommend that we try to not 
only enumerate the topics, but also try to do it in ways that present 
yes or no questions, because that often tends to be the best way to 
handle the very complicated technical topics that come up.

(1) There are some GPL v3 issues floating around.  Remind me 
specifically what they are.

(2) The trademark guidelines around Custom Spins.  We are sort of 
already doing this, but it would be useful to just clear it.

1.  Official Fedora Spins.  These are blessed by the Fedora Board.  It 
is also totally reasonable for Fedora Release Engineering or Fedora 
Engineering Steering Committee to say "hey Fedora Board, we want you to 
bless/rubber stamp Spin Foo".

2.  "Based on Fedora".  These are spins that have not been blessed by 
the Fedora Board, but which contain Fedora packages and/or 3rd party 
packages that we are not breaking any US laws by referencing.

(3) This is the question Rahul often asks:  Has anything changed with 
regard to the laws that prevent us from mentioning and/or linking to 
certain 3rd party repositories?  I'm not 100% sure what the best way to 
phrase this question is.

Please help me to clarify the items on this list or add others that need 
to be addressed.

Thanks,
Max



From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Sep 13 20:38:31 2007
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:38:31 -0400
Subject: Topics in need of RH Legal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1189715911.3773.20.camel@localhost.localdomain>


On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 15:56 -0400, Max Spevack wrote:

> (3) This is the question Rahul often asks:  Has anything changed with 
> regard to the laws that prevent us from mentioning and/or linking to 
> certain 3rd party repositories?  I'm not 100% sure what the best way to 
> phrase this question is.

This question got asked today to Bill, who is passing it on to Mark.
Mark's already sent back some questions, which I've answered, so I'm now
waiting to hear back.

~spot



From tburke at redhat.com  Fri Sep 14 00:13:21 2007
From: tburke at redhat.com (Tim Burke)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:13:21 -0400
Subject: Topics in need of RH Legal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46E9D221.2050102@redhat.com>

Max Spevack wrote:
>
> (2) The trademark guidelines around Custom Spins.  We are sort of 
> already doing this, but it would be useful to just clear it.
>
> 1.  Official Fedora Spins.  These are blessed by the Fedora Board.  It 
> is also totally reasonable for Fedora Release Engineering or Fedora 
> Engineering Steering Committee to say "hey Fedora Board, we want you 
> to bless/rubber stamp Spin Foo".
>
just curious:
- What are the board's acceptance criteria for bestowing blessings?
- What are the benefits one gets from having a spin blessed?  ie, what 
does it imply?



From jkeating at redhat.com  Fri Sep 14 00:29:32 2007
From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:29:32 -0400
Subject: Topics in need of RH Legal
In-Reply-To: <46E9D221.2050102@redhat.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>
	<46E9D221.2050102@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20070913202932.698e3cc8@lumos.localdomain>

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:13:21 -0400
Tim Burke <tburke at redhat.com> wrote:

> - What are the board's acceptance criteria for bestowing blessings?

This is a good question.

> - What are the benefits one gets from having a spin blessed?  ie,
> what does it imply?

Probably
A) being produced at release time by the Fedora Release Engineering Team
B) being mirrored along side the other official spins on the mirrors
and torrent
C) mentioned in release notes/announcement
D) something cool we can offer?

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070913/36d83fef/attachment.sig>

From matt at domsch.com  Fri Sep 14 00:35:11 2007
From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:35:11 -0500
Subject: Topics in need of RH Legal
In-Reply-To: <20070913202932.698e3cc8@lumos.localdomain>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>
	<46E9D221.2050102@redhat.com>
	<20070913202932.698e3cc8@lumos.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20070914003510.GA17514@domsch.com>

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 08:29:32PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:13:21 -0400
> Tim Burke <tburke at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > - What are the board's acceptance criteria for bestowing blessings?
> 
> This is a good question.
> 
> > - What are the benefits one gets from having a spin blessed?  ie,
> > what does it imply?

Primarily, the right to use the Fedora trademarks and name.


> Probably
> A) being produced at release time by the Fedora Release Engineering Team
> B) being mirrored along side the other official spins on the mirrors
> and torrent

These aren't necessarily true, but may be in some circumstances.  I
wouldn't want to add too many extra spins by the Release Engineering
team.  Being listed as a torrent isn't difficult so we can pretty
easily offer that; being posted to the master mirror servers should be
a higher bar IMHO.

-Matt



From tburke at redhat.com  Fri Sep 14 00:37:28 2007
From: tburke at redhat.com (Tim Burke)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:37:28 -0400
Subject: Topics in need of RH Legal
In-Reply-To: <20070913202932.698e3cc8@lumos.localdomain>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>	<46E9D221.2050102@redhat.com>
	<20070913202932.698e3cc8@lumos.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46E9D7C8.5020004@redhat.com>

Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:13:21 -0400
> Tim Burke <tburke at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> - What are the board's acceptance criteria for bestowing blessings?
>>     
>
> This is a good question.
>
>   
Next thing you know; people will be asking for the Fedora spin 
acceptance certification test suite ;-)



From jspaleta at gmail.com  Fri Sep 14 00:46:05 2007
From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:46:05 -0800
Subject: Topics in need of RH Legal
In-Reply-To: <46E9D221.2050102@redhat.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>
	<46E9D221.2050102@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <604aa7910709131746w487b5e05m7e160e03f70ecd04@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/13/07, Tim Burke <tburke at redhat.com> wrote:
> - What are the board's acceptance criteria for bestowing blessings?

First there is the non-refundable $100 processing file for your
blessing application payable directly to me. After that, i think it
comes down primarily making compelling usage case targets.

Taking what Jesse already gave as an answer for the "what does it
imply" question as a starting point. Whatever "blessing" means its
going to come with some level of resource consumption... consumption
of finite resources. So while the _possibilities_ for spinning and
re-spinning things out of the Fedora universe are indeed arguable
_infinite_, we can't justify blessing every kickstart file that
wanders up asking for a kiss on the cheek.


-jef



From jkeating at redhat.com  Fri Sep 14 00:50:05 2007
From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:50:05 -0400
Subject: Topics in need of RH Legal
In-Reply-To: <20070914003510.GA17514@domsch.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>
	<46E9D221.2050102@redhat.com>
	<20070913202932.698e3cc8@lumos.localdomain>
	<20070914003510.GA17514@domsch.com>
Message-ID: <20070913205005.332a3c92@lumos.localdomain>

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:35:11 -0500
Matt Domsch <matt at domsch.com> wrote:

> Primarily, the right to use the Fedora trademarks and name.
> 
> 
> > Probably
> > A) being produced at release time by the Fedora Release Engineering
> > Team B) being mirrored along side the other official spins on the
> > mirrors and torrent  
> 
> These aren't necessarily true, but may be in some circumstances.  I
> wouldn't want to add too many extra spins by the Release Engineering
> team.  Being listed as a torrent isn't difficult so we can pretty
> easily offer that; being posted to the master mirror servers should be
> a higher bar IMHO.

So I was thinking there are two different things.  Spins that can make
use of the Trademarks, and spins that are done by the Fedora project.
I was talking about spins done by the Fedora project, such as the KDE,
Developer, and Electronic Labs Live spins.  Community members did all
the legwork to build up a proper kickstart file and test it out, then
provided it to the Release Engineering team to produce come release
time.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070913/f5f6b758/attachment.sig>

From jspaleta at gmail.com  Fri Sep 14 00:58:32 2007
From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:58:32 -0800
Subject: Topics in need of RH Legal
In-Reply-To: <20070913205005.332a3c92@lumos.localdomain>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>
	<46E9D221.2050102@redhat.com>
	<20070913202932.698e3cc8@lumos.localdomain>
	<20070914003510.GA17514@domsch.com>
	<20070913205005.332a3c92@lumos.localdomain>
Message-ID: <604aa7910709131758o31fed460o450e67a0a20206cf@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/13/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> So I was thinking there are two different things.  Spins that can make
> use of the Trademarks, and spins that are done by the Fedora project.

I agree, use of the trademarks should be the lowest bar possible. But
if its going to get
placement in the Fedora Project officially then it needs to be
reasonably compelling.

-jef



From katzj at redhat.com  Fri Sep 14 01:28:52 2007
From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:28:52 -0400
Subject: Lots of spins! (was Re: Topics in need of RH Legal)
In-Reply-To: <20070914003510.GA17514@domsch.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>
	<46E9D221.2050102@redhat.com>
	<20070913202932.698e3cc8@lumos.localdomain>
	<20070914003510.GA17514@domsch.com>
Message-ID: <1189733332.14591.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 19:35 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 08:29:32PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:13:21 -0400
> > Tim Burke <tburke at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > - What are the board's acceptance criteria for bestowing blessings?
> > 
> > This is a good question.
> > 
> > > - What are the benefits one gets from having a spin blessed?  ie,
> > > what does it imply?
> 
> Primarily, the right to use the Fedora trademarks and name.
> 
> 
> > Probably
> > A) being produced at release time by the Fedora Release Engineering Team
> > B) being mirrored along side the other official spins on the mirrors
> > and torrent
> 
> These aren't necessarily true, but may be in some circumstances.  I
> wouldn't want to add too many extra spins by the Release Engineering
> team.  Being listed as a torrent isn't difficult so we can pretty
> easily offer that; being posted to the master mirror servers should be
> a higher bar IMHO.

And, fwiw, I think we need to be looking at the best ways for
distributing the multitudes of spins (as well as having them created
without it being done by the rel-eng team) as well as highlighting them,
figuring out the differences, etc.  But that's a whole other discussion
from the legal side of things

Jeremy



From skvidal at fedoraproject.org  Fri Sep 14 02:02:16 2007
From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (seth vidal)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:02:16 -0400
Subject: Lots of spins! (was Re: Topics in need of RH Legal)
In-Reply-To: <1189733332.14591.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>
	<46E9D221.2050102@redhat.com>
	<20070913202932.698e3cc8@lumos.localdomain>
	<20070914003510.GA17514@domsch.com>
	<1189733332.14591.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1189735336.6704.151.camel@cutter>


On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 21:28 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 19:35 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 08:29:32PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:13:21 -0400
> > > Tim Burke <tburke at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > - What are the board's acceptance criteria for bestowing blessings?
> > > 
> > > This is a good question.
> > > 
> > > > - What are the benefits one gets from having a spin blessed?  ie,
> > > > what does it imply?
> > 
> > Primarily, the right to use the Fedora trademarks and name.
> > 
> > 
> > > Probably
> > > A) being produced at release time by the Fedora Release Engineering Team
> > > B) being mirrored along side the other official spins on the mirrors
> > > and torrent
> > 
> > These aren't necessarily true, but may be in some circumstances.  I
> > wouldn't want to add too many extra spins by the Release Engineering
> > team.  Being listed as a torrent isn't difficult so we can pretty
> > easily offer that; being posted to the master mirror servers should be
> > a higher bar IMHO.
> 
> And, fwiw, I think we need to be looking at the best ways for
> distributing the multitudes of spins (as well as having them created
> without it being done by the rel-eng team) as well as highlighting them,
> figuring out the differences, etc.  But that's a whole other discussion
> from the legal side of things
> 

I'll say something ridiculous and then we can talk about it - but S3
buckets can be made available as torrent seeds.

Giving people access to upload to our S3 buckets for their spins will
help keep it off of our main seed and yet still let us control it.

-sv




From sundaram at fedoraproject.org  Fri Sep 14 04:49:27 2007
From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:19:27 +0530
Subject: Topics in need of RH Legal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709131540340.13442@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46EA12D7.7050700@fedoraproject.org>

Max Spevack wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> I have a meeting set up with our legal folks on Monday at 10:00 AM, 
> which is a good time to present the biggest issues that we need Red 
> Hat's advice and/or legal recommendation on.
> 
> They will provide me with as many answers as possible, and research any 
> of the topics that are complicated enough as to not be obvious.
> 
> So let's use this thread to make a list.  I recommend that we try to not 
> only enumerate the topics, but also try to do it in ways that present 
> yes or no questions, because that often tends to be the best way to 
> handle the very complicated technical topics that come up.
> 
> (1) There are some GPL v3 issues floating around.  Remind me 
> specifically what they are.
> 
> (2) The trademark guidelines around Custom Spins.  We are sort of 
> already doing this, but it would be useful to just clear it.
> 
> 1.  Official Fedora Spins.  These are blessed by the Fedora Board.  It 
> is also totally reasonable for Fedora Release Engineering or Fedora 
> Engineering Steering Committee to say "hey Fedora Board, we want you to 
> bless/rubber stamp Spin Foo".
> 
> 2.  "Based on Fedora".  These are spins that have not been blessed by 
> the Fedora Board, but which contain Fedora packages and/or 3rd party 
> packages that we are not breaking any US laws by referencing.
> 
> (3) This is the question Rahul often asks:  Has anything changed with 
> regard to the laws that prevent us from mentioning and/or linking to 
> certain 3rd party repositories?  I'm not 100% sure what the best way to 
> phrase this question is.
> 
> Please help me to clarify the items on this list or add others that need 
> to be addressed.

Privacy policy http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/PrivacyPolicy. We 
need legal to endorse it with any changes necessary.

Logo usage: It would also be nice to get some clear logo guidelines that 
doesn't restrict artistic creativity or require explicit permission in 
each and every instance. If that is not possible, we would need advise 
on using a second logo or mascot.

Legal list. Someone needs to own and maintain 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLegalIssues

Rahul



From kwade at redhat.com  Fri Sep 14 08:31:48 2007
From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:31:48 -0700
Subject: developers and Fedora
Message-ID: <1189758708.3212.72.camel@erato.phig.org>

Thank you all who are interested in making Fedora a distribution for
developers.

I want to update the Fedora-related content here, and while Max is the
"owner" of the Fedora section of this page, I realized that we both need
some help in finding the _best_ developer-oriented places to link to
from the Fedora Project.

http://www.redhat.com/developers/

These are links that could be useful to anyone who might click on a
'Developers' tab on redhat.com -- from CIOs to corporate coders.

thx - Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Developer Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41



From mspevack at redhat.com  Mon Sep 17 13:57:41 2007
From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:57:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: developers and Fedora
In-Reply-To: <1189758708.3212.72.camel@erato.phig.org>
References: <1189758708.3212.72.camel@erato.phig.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709170956300.3979@localhost.localdomain>

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Karsten Wade wrote:

> I want to update the Fedora-related content here, and while Max is the 
> "owner" of the Fedora section of this page,

In the very general sense that "they can't change it without me giving a 
+1".  But we also don't really do much with it.  We just try to push 
people over to fp.org as fast as possible, where we DO have total 
control.

They will make any changes to that page that we ask, basically.  We just 
provide a diff of the html, and wait about 2 weeks.  :)

--Max



From stickster at gmail.com  Mon Sep 17 19:58:09 2007
From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:58:09 -0400
Subject: Live Fedora start page proposal
In-Reply-To: <1188783873.1394.19.camel@erato.phig.org>
References: <91fcd7990708280707g4d00ca82q7059f6579c33747@mail.gmail.com>
	<46D43A61.9060809@fedoraproject.org>
	<91fcd7990708280826g78f0f5bal9963709a371acfb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<604aa7910708281034w32c2a99xc67e1d3bc14b836c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1188322672.27085.5.camel@cutter>  <46D81B56.7000809@redhat.com>
	<1188569637.27085.410.camel@cutter>
	<1188783873.1394.19.camel@erato.phig.org>
Message-ID: <1190059089.24702.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 18:44 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 10:13 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> 
> > Maybe, I'm thinking the website team should probably determine what's on
> > the page.
> 
> We could work closely with Creative Commons in an editorial sense; get
> their help to find and highlight open content.

This thread appears to have petered out, but by way of reviving it, I
thought I would note that we have the current content enabled in Docs
CVS for inclusion in the next issuance of the fedora-release-notes
package.  There was some talk about how useful this would be as an
on-disk page, given that there's no functionality in it right now to
fetch new online content.  Since we have a translation-ready toolchain,
though, we felt it prudent to get the strings into the process.

http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-trans-list/2007-September/msg00093.html
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-trans-list/2007-September/msg00094.html
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2007-September/msg00030.html 

Note that the content was derived from the current contents of
http://start.fedoraproject.org/ .  If anyone is updating that content or
otherwise expects it to be translated in time for F8 GA, now would be a
good time to talk about it and close this issue. :-)

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
      Fedora Project:  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070917/00328f39/attachment.sig>

From kwade at redhat.com  Tue Sep 18 03:10:46 2007
From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:10:46 -0700
Subject: developers and Fedora
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709170956300.3979@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1189758708.3212.72.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709170956300.3979@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1190085046.11819.17.camel@erato.phig.org>

On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 09:57 -0400, Max Spevack wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Karsten Wade wrote:
> 
> > I want to update the Fedora-related content here, and while Max is the 
> > "owner" of the Fedora section of this page,
> 
> In the very general sense that "they can't change it without me giving a 
> +1".  

What I meant was, internally you are considered the owner of that
content, from the view of the folks who manage redhat.com.

> But we also don't really do much with it.  We just try to push 
> people over to fp.org as fast as possible, where we DO have total 
> control.
> 
> They will make any changes to that page that we ask, basically.  We just 
> provide a diff of the html, and wait about 2 weeks.  :)

What I'm doing is helping to fix up that page across the board, and what
we need to put in there is content that is of value to developers (since
it is the [Developers] tab.)

Which brings me to my search ... what do ye recommend?

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41



From a.badger at gmail.com  Tue Sep 18 16:57:13 2007
From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi)
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:57:13 -0700
Subject: developers and Fedora
In-Reply-To: <1189758708.3212.72.camel@erato.phig.org>
References: <1189758708.3212.72.camel@erato.phig.org>
Message-ID: <46F00369.1000105@gmail.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Karsten Wade wrote:
> Thank you all who are interested in making Fedora a distribution for
> developers.
> 
> I want to update the Fedora-related content here, and while Max is the
> "owner" of the Fedora section of this page, I realized that we both need
> some help in finding the _best_ developer-oriented places to link to
> from the Fedora Project.
> 
> http://www.redhat.com/developers/
> 
> These are links that could be useful to anyone who might click on a
> 'Developers' tab on redhat.com -- from CIOs to corporate coders.
> 
This ties in a bit to something the Development SIG[1]_ talked about
last week.  Search for documentation on:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Development/Meetings/2007-09-04

There's a lot of upstream documentation that would make life easier for
coders on Fedora but it's not always organized so you can find what you
want when you want it.

.. [1]: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Development
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG8ANpX6yAic2E7kgRAr/8AKCNeuVt6KdgOlv0ZbF8KhJQCIQxJgCbBWUJ
ryXusZgBPp4tfthsoUVIMYY=
=vL3s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From fedora at leemhuis.info  Sat Sep 22 11:00:41 2007
From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:00:41 +0200
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
Message-ID: <46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>

CCing Fedora-Advisory Board

On 22.09.2007 03:01, Dag Wieers wrote:
> [...] I also have no problem if the RPMforge SPEC files are to be
> used by other projects, and I know some people have done this. I do
> not feel that the SPEC files contain anything 'special'. In fact, I
> would not be surprised if people can come up with (almost) exactly
> the same SPEC file for a project. So I don't feel the need to add a
> license or copyright, you can think of the SPEC file as being in the
> public domain.
> 
> In fact, I prefer that people use existing SPEC files and improve on
> them so that at least different packages have the same basis (and
> naming). I welcome feedback and ideas, but can understand to need for
> control and authority within a seperate project.

+1 to this and I also have no problem if my spec files are used by other
projects. I also would prefer if they are used that way and that
improvements flow from one project to the other and vice versa. Using
the pkgdb and the cvs-commits list it's easy for outsiders to already
follow them -- I you want watchcommits access to some of my packages
just let me know.

I cannot speak for other peoples spec files and I suspect some packagers
won't agree with the "SPEC files are public domain" statement -- making
the license of the spec files explicit (a Wiki page that says "All our
Fedora RPM SPEC files are free software and public domain if not
otherwise specified in the spec file" might be enough already) in
Fedora-land (EPEL, Fedora) would be best for all, as external projects
(RPMForge, RPMFusion, Linva, freshrpms, <insert others>) than would be
on the safe side if they use them.

@FESCo, at Board, you have the power to do that -- are you willing to do
something like that? Currently it's a bit a grey area IMHO and that
sucks. tia!

Cu
knurd

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list at redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list



From fedora at leemhuis.info  Sat Sep 22 16:03:31 2007
From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:03:31 +0200
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
Message-ID: <46F53CD3.7010705@leemhuis.info>

Seems I missed to CC Fedora-Advisory Board, thus sending this again.
Sorry for the trouble epel-devel-list.

On 22.09.2007 13:00, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> CCing Fedora-Advisory Board
> 
> On 22.09.2007 03:01, Dag Wieers wrote:
>> [...] I also have no problem if the RPMforge SPEC files are to be
>> used by other projects, and I know some people have done this. I do
>> not feel that the SPEC files contain anything 'special'. In fact, I
>> would not be surprised if people can come up with (almost) exactly
>> the same SPEC file for a project. So I don't feel the need to add a
>> license or copyright, you can think of the SPEC file as being in the
>> public domain.
>>
>> In fact, I prefer that people use existing SPEC files and improve on
>> them so that at least different packages have the same basis (and
>> naming). I welcome feedback and ideas, but can understand to need for
>> control and authority within a seperate project.
> 
> +1 to this and I also have no problem if my spec files are used by other
> projects. I also would prefer if they are used that way and that
> improvements flow from one project to the other and vice versa. Using
> the pkgdb and the cvs-commits list it's easy for outsiders to already
> follow them -- I you want watchcommits access to some of my packages
> just let me know.
> 
> I cannot speak for other peoples spec files and I suspect some packagers
> won't agree with the "SPEC files are public domain" statement -- making
> the license of the spec files explicit (a Wiki page that says "All our
> Fedora RPM SPEC files are free software and public domain if not
> otherwise specified in the spec file" might be enough already) in
> Fedora-land (EPEL, Fedora) would be best for all, as external projects
> (RPMForge, RPMFusion, Linva, freshrpms, <insert others>) than would be
> on the safe side if they use them.
> 
> @FESCo, at Board, you have the power to do that -- are you willing to do
> something like that? Currently it's a bit a grey area IMHO and that
> sucks. tia!
> 
> Cu
> knurd
> 
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fedora-advisory-board mailing list
> fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
> 



From tibbs at math.uh.edu  Sat Sep 22 16:12:56 2007
From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III)
Date: 22 Sep 2007 11:12:56 -0500
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
Message-ID: <ufahclmy8zb.fsf@epithumia.math.uh.edu>

>>>>> "TL" == Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> writes:

TL> I cannot speak for other peoples spec files and I suspect some
TL> packagers won't agree with the "SPEC files are public domain"
TL> statement

You can be certain of it; for whatever reason, jpackage specfiles
carry a block of license text, and they've been incorporated verbatim
into Fedora.  Which I honestly don't think should have been allowed,
but nobody seemed to care when I raised the issue.

I certainly agree that the issue begs clarification.
 
 - J<



From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org  Sat Sep 22 16:29:43 2007
From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:29:43 -0500
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
Message-ID: <20070922112943.015b937c@vader.jdub.homelinux.org>

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:00:41 +0200
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> wrote:

> CCing Fedora-Advisory Board
> 
> On 22.09.2007 03:01, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > [...] I also have no problem if the RPMforge SPEC files are to be
> > used by other projects, and I know some people have done this. I do
> > not feel that the SPEC files contain anything 'special'. In fact, I
> > would not be surprised if people can come up with (almost) exactly
> > the same SPEC file for a project. So I don't feel the need to add a
> > license or copyright, you can think of the SPEC file as being in the
> > public domain.
> > 
> > In fact, I prefer that people use existing SPEC files and improve on
> > them so that at least different packages have the same basis (and
> > naming). I welcome feedback and ideas, but can understand to need for
> > control and authority within a seperate project.
> 
> +1 to this and I also have no problem if my spec files are used by other
> projects. I also would prefer if they are used that way and that
> improvements flow from one project to the other and vice versa. Using
> the pkgdb and the cvs-commits list it's easy for outsiders to already
> follow them -- I you want watchcommits access to some of my packages
> just let me know.
> 
> I cannot speak for other peoples spec files and I suspect some packagers
> won't agree with the "SPEC files are public domain" statement -- making
> the license of the spec files explicit (a Wiki page that says "All our
> Fedora RPM SPEC files are free software and public domain if not
> otherwise specified in the spec file" might be enough already) in
> Fedora-land (EPEL, Fedora) would be best for all, as external projects
> (RPMForge, RPMFusion, Linva, freshrpms, <insert others>) than would be
> on the safe side if they use them.
>
> @FESCo, at Board, you have the power to do that -- are you willing to do
> something like that? Currently it's a bit a grey area IMHO and that
> sucks. tia!

I don't think you really want them to be considered public domain.  You
actually have to expressly say "This spec file is public domain" before
that becomes true, otherwise it still holds a copyright by default.
That's a lot of spec files to edit for no real gain.

Personally, I consider spec files to be contributions to Fedora per the
CLA.  And since the Distribution as a whole is licensed under the
GPLv2, the spec files are likely licensed under that too.  (I AM NOT A
LAWYER AND TAKING LEGAL ADVICE FROM ME WOULD BE VERY STUPID)

Overall, I think it's just fine for the spec files to be used in other
projects.  The Board would ultimately have the call here.  It's above
FESCo.

josh



From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org  Sat Sep 22 16:31:19 2007
From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:31:19 -0500
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <ufahclmy8zb.fsf@epithumia.math.uh.edu>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<ufahclmy8zb.fsf@epithumia.math.uh.edu>
Message-ID: <20070922113119.186c8e6b@vader.jdub.homelinux.org>

On 22 Sep 2007 11:12:56 -0500
Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:

> >>>>> "TL" == Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> writes:
> 
> TL> I cannot speak for other peoples spec files and I suspect some
> TL> packagers won't agree with the "SPEC files are public domain"
> TL> statement
> 
> You can be certain of it; for whatever reason, jpackage specfiles
> carry a block of license text, and they've been incorporated verbatim
> into Fedora.  Which I honestly don't think should have been allowed,
> but nobody seemed to care when I raised the issue.

I don't see anything that expressly forbids that.  I agree it's pretty
silly to do so though.

josh



From luis at tieguy.org  Sat Sep 22 16:37:35 2007
From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:37:35 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <ufahclmy8zb.fsf@epithumia.math.uh.edu>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<ufahclmy8zb.fsf@epithumia.math.uh.edu>
Message-ID: <2cb10c440709220937mc996cd7o4eeda12754469643@mail.gmail.com>

On 22 Sep 2007 11:12:56 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:
> >>>>> "TL" == Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> writes:
>
> TL> I cannot speak for other peoples spec files and I suspect some
> TL> packagers won't agree with the "SPEC files are public domain"
> TL> statement

(disclaimer: IANALY)

At least under US copyright law, it isn't at all clear that spec files
are copyrightable. When there are very few (or effectively one) way of
expressing a particular idea, courts typically will find that there is
no copyright protection for the expression(s) of the idea. This is
known as 'merger doctrine', since the idea is said to be 'merged' with
the expression of the idea.

I'd suggest that most specfiles probably are like this- there are only
so many ways to list which files need to be packaged, what the deps
are, etc., and they mostly derive from known facts rather than
creative choice on the part of the specfile author. (Dag, who
obviously knows a hell of a lot more about specfiles than I do, seems
to agree with me, but YMMV.)

That said, it wouldn't hurt for Fedora to expressly note that they
think that specfiles are not copyrighted/copyrightable, so that there
is no confusion.

Luis (again, disclaimer: IANALY)



From tibbs at math.uh.edu  Sat Sep 22 16:44:45 2007
From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III)
Date: 22 Sep 2007 11:44:45 -0500
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <20070922113119.186c8e6b@vader.jdub.homelinux.org>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<ufahclmy8zb.fsf@epithumia.math.uh.edu>
	<20070922113119.186c8e6b@vader.jdub.homelinux.org>
Message-ID: <ufa1wcqy7ia.fsf@epithumia.math.uh.edu>

>>>>> "JB" == Josh Boyer <jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org> writes:

JB> I don't see anything that expressly forbids that.

I know; my point was that there should have been clarification before
the first such spec was allowed in the distro.  (I did several early
Java package reviews and was uncomfortable when I saw the first
more-license-than-spec specfile from jpackage.)

 - J<



From tcallawa at redhat.com  Sat Sep 22 16:48:40 2007
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:48:40 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <ufa1wcqy7ia.fsf@epithumia.math.uh.edu>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<ufahclmy8zb.fsf@epithumia.math.uh.edu>
	<20070922113119.186c8e6b@vader.jdub.homelinux.org>
	<ufa1wcqy7ia.fsf@epithumia.math.uh.edu>
Message-ID: <1190479720.3966.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>


On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 11:44 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "JB" == Josh Boyer <jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org> writes:
> 
> JB> I don't see anything that expressly forbids that.
> 
> I know; my point was that there should have been clarification before
> the first such spec was allowed in the distro.  (I did several early
> Java package reviews and was uncomfortable when I saw the first
> more-license-than-spec specfile from jpackage.)

Actually, this is permitted. It's dumb, but permissable.

~spot



From tcallawa at redhat.com  Tue Sep 25 20:59:46 2007
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:59:46 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
Message-ID: <1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>


On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 13:00 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> @FESCo, at Board, you have the power to do that -- are you willing to do
> something like that? Currently it's a bit a grey area IMHO and that
> sucks. tia!

The CLA covers this:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/CLA

"2. Contributor Grant of License. You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on
behalf of the Project, and to recipients of software distributed by the
Project: 
      * (a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up,
        royalty free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce,
        prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
        sublicense, and distribute your Contribution and such derivative
        works; and, 
      * (b) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up,
        royalty free, irrevocable (subject to Section 3) patent license
        to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and
        otherwise transfer your Contribution and derivative works
        thereof, where such license applies only to those patent claims
        licensable by you that are necessarily infringed by your
        Contribution alone or by combination of your Contribution with
        the work to which you submitted the Contribution. Except for the
        license granted in this section, you reserve all right, title
        and interest in and to your Contributions."

Short answer: All Fedora spec files get these rights. Anyone downloading
them gets them too.

~spot



From fedora at leemhuis.info  Wed Sep 26 04:47:00 2007
From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:47:00 +0200
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>

On 25.09.2007 22:59, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 13:00 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
>> @FESCo, at Board, you have the power to do that -- are you willing to do
>> something like that? Currently it's a bit a grey area IMHO and that
>> sucks. tia!
> 
> The CLA covers this:
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/CLA
> 
> "2. Contributor Grant of License. You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on
> behalf of the Project, and to recipients of software distributed by the
> Project: 
>       * (a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up,
>         royalty free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce,
>         prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
>         sublicense, and distribute your Contribution and such derivative
>         works; and, 
>       * (b) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up,
>         royalty free, irrevocable (subject to Section 3) patent license
>         to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and
>         otherwise transfer your Contribution and derivative works
>         thereof, where such license applies only to those patent claims
>         licensable by you that are necessarily infringed by your
>         Contribution alone or by combination of your Contribution with
>         the work to which you submitted the Contribution. Except for the
>         license granted in this section, you reserve all right, title
>         and interest in and to your Contributions."
> 
> Short answer: All Fedora spec files get these rights. Anyone downloading
> them gets them too.

And the latter is not obvious to anyone downloading the software. He
often will not even be aware of a "Contributor Grant of License" that
contributors make with the software provider, as he just wants to use
the software and don't contribute to it.

It's like a contract that one makes with the author of software "foo"
that states that all contributions to foo are Free Software. But then
foo get shipped without any license and the users of foo cannot be sure
if it's free software (thus it would be unshippable in Fedora!).

Further: As IANAL I read stuff like "a perpetual, non-exclusive,
worldwide, fully paid-up [...] sublicense, and distribute your
Contribution and such derivative works [...]" and wonder "that gives RH
a lot of rights -- even to distribute it as non-free software" (afaics
an IANAL). So who says it's free software if I just download a SPEC file
from CVS or a SRPM from the web?

IOW: We should obey our own guidelines that at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
say: "If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it." I think we don't need to include it in the spec files, but
clarifying it is IMHO really needed and not a big deal.

So could the Board please put it on its agenda?

Cu
knurd



From mspevack at redhat.com  Wed Sep 26 14:05:44 2007
From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:05:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> On 25.09.2007 22:59, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 13:00 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>
>>> @FESCo, at Board, you have the power to do that -- are you willing to do
>>> something like that? Currently it's a bit a grey area IMHO and that
>>> sucks. tia!
>>
>> The CLA covers this:
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/CLA
>>
>> "2. Contributor Grant of License. You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on
>> behalf of the Project, and to recipients of software distributed by the
>> Project:
>>       * (a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up,
>>         royalty free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce,
>>         prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
>>         sublicense, and distribute your Contribution and such derivative
>>         works; and,
>>       * (b) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up,
>>         royalty free, irrevocable (subject to Section 3) patent license
>>         to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and
>>         otherwise transfer your Contribution and derivative works
>>         thereof, where such license applies only to those patent claims
>>         licensable by you that are necessarily infringed by your
>>         Contribution alone or by combination of your Contribution with
>>         the work to which you submitted the Contribution. Except for the
>>         license granted in this section, you reserve all right, title
>>         and interest in and to your Contributions."
>>
>> Short answer: All Fedora spec files get these rights. Anyone downloading
>> them gets them too.
>
> And the latter is not obvious to anyone downloading the software. He
> often will not even be aware of a "Contributor Grant of License" that
> contributors make with the software provider, as he just wants to use
> the software and don't contribute to it.
>
> It's like a contract that one makes with the author of software "foo"
> that states that all contributions to foo are Free Software. But then
> foo get shipped without any license and the users of foo cannot be sure
> if it's free software (thus it would be unshippable in Fedora!).
>
> Further: As IANAL I read stuff like "a perpetual, non-exclusive,
> worldwide, fully paid-up [...] sublicense, and distribute your
> Contribution and such derivative works [...]" and wonder "that gives RH
> a lot of rights -- even to distribute it as non-free software" (afaics
> an IANAL). So who says it's free software if I just download a SPEC file
> from CVS or a SRPM from the web?
>
> IOW: We should obey our own guidelines that at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
> say: "If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
> separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
> include it." I think we don't need to include it in the spec files, but
> clarifying it is IMHO really needed and not a big deal.
>
> So could the Board please put it on its agenda?

What is the decision that you are looking for here, Thorsten?  A 
statement that the Fedora spec files are just as redistributable as all 
the rest of our source code (ie: that the spec files are GPL'd just like 
the source?)

I must confess I don't really understand the fundamental question of 
this thread.  It would never even OCCUR to me to think that our spec 
files aren't as Free as everything else.

But if you can help me understand what you want, I will try to make that 
thing happen.

--Max



From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org  Wed Sep 26 14:14:45 2007
From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:14:45 -0500
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:05:44 -0400 (EDT)
Max Spevack <mspevack at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
> > On 25.09.2007 22:59, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 13:00 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >>
> >>> @FESCo, at Board, you have the power to do that -- are you willing to do
> >>> something like that? Currently it's a bit a grey area IMHO and that
> >>> sucks. tia!
> >>
> >> The CLA covers this:
> >>
> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/CLA
> >>
> >> "2. Contributor Grant of License. You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on
> >> behalf of the Project, and to recipients of software distributed by the
> >> Project:
> >>       * (a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up,
> >>         royalty free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce,
> >>         prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
> >>         sublicense, and distribute your Contribution and such derivative
> >>         works; and,
> >>       * (b) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up,
> >>         royalty free, irrevocable (subject to Section 3) patent license
> >>         to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and
> >>         otherwise transfer your Contribution and derivative works
> >>         thereof, where such license applies only to those patent claims
> >>         licensable by you that are necessarily infringed by your
> >>         Contribution alone or by combination of your Contribution with
> >>         the work to which you submitted the Contribution. Except for the
> >>         license granted in this section, you reserve all right, title
> >>         and interest in and to your Contributions."
> >>
> >> Short answer: All Fedora spec files get these rights. Anyone downloading
> >> them gets them too.
> >
> > And the latter is not obvious to anyone downloading the software. He
> > often will not even be aware of a "Contributor Grant of License" that
> > contributors make with the software provider, as he just wants to use
> > the software and don't contribute to it.
> >
> > It's like a contract that one makes with the author of software "foo"
> > that states that all contributions to foo are Free Software. But then
> > foo get shipped without any license and the users of foo cannot be sure
> > if it's free software (thus it would be unshippable in Fedora!).
> >
> > Further: As IANAL I read stuff like "a perpetual, non-exclusive,
> > worldwide, fully paid-up [...] sublicense, and distribute your
> > Contribution and such derivative works [...]" and wonder "that gives RH
> > a lot of rights -- even to distribute it as non-free software" (afaics
> > an IANAL). So who says it's free software if I just download a SPEC file
> > from CVS or a SRPM from the web?
> >
> > IOW: We should obey our own guidelines that at
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
> > say: "If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
> > separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
> > include it." I think we don't need to include it in the spec files, but
> > clarifying it is IMHO really needed and not a big deal.
> >
> > So could the Board please put it on its agenda?
> 
> What is the decision that you are looking for here, Thorsten?  A 
> statement that the Fedora spec files are just as redistributable as all 
> the rest of our source code (ie: that the spec files are GPL'd just like 
> the source?)
> 
> I must confess I don't really understand the fundamental question of 
> this thread.  It would never even OCCUR to me to think that our spec 
> files aren't as Free as everything else.
> 
> But if you can help me understand what you want, I will try to make that 
> thing happen.

A declaration of what license (if any) the spec files are under
globally.  Spot is right in that they are covered by the CLA, but I
don't consider that to be straight forward for people consuming
downstream. It's also complicated by the fact that nothing disallows
people from adding their own license to the spec file.

The end goal is simply to allow others to take the Fedora spec files
and use them in other projects.

josh



From jkeating at redhat.com  Wed Sep 26 14:26:17 2007
From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:26:17 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <20070926102617.70ad9ebb@redhat.com>

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:14:45 -0500
Josh Boyer <jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org> wrote:

> A declaration of what license (if any) the spec files are under
> globally.  Spot is right in that they are covered by the CLA, but I
> don't consider that to be straight forward for people consuming
> downstream. It's also complicated by the fact that nothing disallows
> people from adding their own license to the spec file.
> 
> The end goal is simply to allow others to take the Fedora spec files
> and use them in other projects.

Also we should probably make a decision project wise as to if allowing
spec files in Fedora to be explicitly licensed (see jpp spec files) and
if so how that interacts with the global license of all spec files.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070926/98b76723/attachment.sig>

From mspevack at redhat.com  Wed Sep 26 14:34:44 2007
From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:34:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261033320.4507@localhost.localdomain>

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Josh Boyer wrote:

> A declaration of what license (if any) the spec files are under 
> globally.  Spot is right in that they are covered by the CLA, but I 
> don't consider that to be straight forward for people consuming 
> downstream. It's also complicated by the fact that nothing disallows 
> people from adding their own license to the spec file.
>
> The end goal is simply to allow others to take the Fedora spec files 
> and use them in other projects.

Ok.  I've asked Mark Webbink to clarify this for me explicitly, so that 
we can remove the confusion.  I'll post back here when I hear from him.

thanks,
Max



From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org  Wed Sep 26 14:35:52 2007
From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:35:52 -0500
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <20070926102617.70ad9ebb@redhat.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<20070926102617.70ad9ebb@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20070926093552.3bdc4aa3@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:26:17 -0400
Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:14:45 -0500
> Josh Boyer <jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org> wrote:
> 
> > A declaration of what license (if any) the spec files are under
> > globally.  Spot is right in that they are covered by the CLA, but I
> > don't consider that to be straight forward for people consuming
> > downstream. It's also complicated by the fact that nothing disallows
> > people from adding their own license to the spec file.
> > 
> > The end goal is simply to allow others to take the Fedora spec files
> > and use them in other projects.
> 
> Also we should probably make a decision project wise as to if allowing
> spec files in Fedora to be explicitly licensed (see jpp spec files) and
> if so how that interacts with the global license of all spec files.

Perhaps.  Though you'll be opening yourself up for lots of interesting
"you stole my licensed spec file!" debates if you disallow it.  The jpp
folks added the licensing explicitly because of Fedora contributors
doing that.

josh



From rc040203 at freenet.de  Wed Sep 26 15:01:46 2007
From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:01:46 +0200
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>

On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 09:14 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:05:44 -0400 (EDT)


> A declaration of what license (if any) the spec files are under
> globally.  Spot is right in that they are covered by the CLA,
1. The CLA is a bilateral contract. It is invisible to arbitrary users
wanting to use these specs.

2. The CLA's applicability is controversial (compatibiltiy) wrt. some
licenses, esp. GPL'ed packages. Fundamental question would be: 
Is an rpm a derivative work of the "original works"?


>  but I
> don't consider that to be straight forward for people consuming
> downstream. It's also complicated by the fact that nothing disallows
> people from adding their own license to the spec file.
Further questions arise from Fedora maintainers reusing/modifying
upstream specs and/or specs from other origins (e.g. other distros). 
They can be covered by other copyrights/licenses (e.g. the GPL).

> The end goal is simply to allow others to take the Fedora spec files
> and use them in other projects.

Ralf




From kwade at redhat.com  Wed Sep 26 16:24:00 2007
From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:24:00 -0700
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
Message-ID: <1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>

On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 17:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> Further questions arise from Fedora maintainers reusing/modifying
> upstream specs and/or specs from other origins (e.g. other distros). 
> They can be covered by other copyrights/licenses (e.g. the GPL).

Since spec files are specific to RPM packaging, could it be better if
rpm.org set the standard?  It could be a bigger first step toward all
sources of spec files being license compatible.

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41



From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org  Wed Sep 26 17:46:07 2007
From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:46:07 -0500
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
Message-ID: <20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:24:00 -0700
Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 17:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> > Further questions arise from Fedora maintainers reusing/modifying
> > upstream specs and/or specs from other origins (e.g. other distros). 
> > They can be covered by other copyrights/licenses (e.g. the GPL).
> 
> Since spec files are specific to RPM packaging, could it be better if
> rpm.org set the standard?  It could be a bigger first step toward all
> sources of spec files being license compatible.

What?  That's the equivalent of saying that the GNU Make project should
set the copyright on all makefiles...

josh



From fedora at leemhuis.info  Wed Sep 26 17:51:10 2007
From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:51:10 +0200
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
Message-ID: <46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>

On 26.09.2007 18:24, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 17:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
>> Further questions arise from Fedora maintainers reusing/modifying
>> upstream specs and/or specs from other origins (e.g. other distros). 
>> They can be covered by other copyrights/licenses (e.g. the GPL).
> Since spec files are specific to RPM packaging, could it be better if
> rpm.org set the standard?  It could be a bigger first step toward all
> sources of spec files being license compatible.

Different projects and contributors might want to put spec files under
different licenses, so I don't like that idea to much.

rpm.org on the other hand could guide everyone and provide a "sane
default" maybe.

CU
knurd



From fedora at leemhuis.info  Wed Sep 26 17:52:39 2007
From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:52:39 +0200
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <20070926173451.GA27189@jadzia.bu.edu>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926173451.GA27189@jadzia.bu.edu>
Message-ID: <46FA9C67.8090700@leemhuis.info>



On 26.09.2007 19:34, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> In fact, I'd really like to encourage spec-files-as-public-domain.

+1

CU
knurd



From fedora at leemhuis.info  Wed Sep 26 17:53:20 2007
From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:53:20 +0200
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261033320.4507@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261033320.4507@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46FA9C90.6080408@leemhuis.info>



On 26.09.2007 16:34, Max Spevack wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 
>> A declaration of what license (if any) the spec files are under 
>> globally.  Spot is right in that they are covered by the CLA, but I 
>> don't consider that to be straight forward for people consuming 
>> downstream. It's also complicated by the fact that nothing disallows 
>> people from adding their own license to the spec file.
>>
>> The end goal is simply to allow others to take the Fedora spec files 
>> and use them in other projects.

Yeah, exactly that.

> Ok.  I've asked Mark Webbink to clarify this for me explicitly, so that 
> we can remove the confusion.  I'll post back here when I hear from him.

Thanks for your work Max.

CU
knurd



From kwade at redhat.com  Wed Sep 26 18:09:12 2007
From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:09:12 -0700
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
Message-ID: <1190830152.21739.87.camel@erato.phig.org>

On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 19:51 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> rpm.org on the other hand could guide everyone and provide a "sane
> default" maybe.

For example, by putting in a default bit of text in a default spec file
that says, "This specfile is under the license of the software it
packages" or something?

That way people who accept the default aren't doing any harm, they can
always change it, and they help all the rest of the world to know what
they can/cannot do?

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41



From kwade at redhat.com  Wed Sep 26 18:18:15 2007
From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:18:15 -0700
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>

On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 12:46 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:24:00 -0700
> Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 17:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > 
> > > Further questions arise from Fedora maintainers reusing/modifying
> > > upstream specs and/or specs from other origins (e.g. other distros). 
> > > They can be covered by other copyrights/licenses (e.g. the GPL).
> > 
> > Since spec files are specific to RPM packaging, could it be better if
> > rpm.org set the standard?  It could be a bigger first step toward all
> > sources of spec files being license compatible.
> 
> What?  That's the equivalent of saying that the GNU Make project should
> set the copyright on all makefiles...

No, it's not.

-- 
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41



From fedora at leemhuis.info  Wed Sep 26 18:19:51 2007
From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:19:51 +0200
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190830152.21739.87.camel@erato.phig.org>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
	<1190830152.21739.87.camel@erato.phig.org>
Message-ID: <46FAA2C7.5040805@leemhuis.info>

On 26.09.2007 20:09, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 19:51 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
>> rpm.org on the other hand could guide everyone and provide a "sane
>> default" maybe.
> For example, by putting in a default bit of text in a default spec file

Well, your normally start spec files from scratch, so there is no
"default spec file" to put it in. Fedora OTOH provides one via
rpmdevtools (rpmdev-newspec)-- we could put something into that one.

> that says, "This specfile is under the license of the software it
> packages" or something?

For example -- but I'd prefer something like "This spec files is public
domain"

> [...]

CU
knurd



From sundaram at fedoraproject.org  Wed Sep 26 18:32:05 2007
From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:02:05 +0530
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <46FAA2C7.5040805@leemhuis.info>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>	<1190830152.21739.87.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<46FAA2C7.5040805@leemhuis.info>
Message-ID: <46FAA5A5.6040306@fedoraproject.org>

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
> For example -- but I'd prefer something like "This spec files is public
> domain"

I would prefer we put in under a permissive license like MIT X11 so that 
we get credit for the work we enable.

Rahul



From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org  Wed Sep 26 18:47:49 2007
From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:47:49 -0500
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <46FAA5A5.6040306@fedoraproject.org>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
	<1190830152.21739.87.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<46FAA2C7.5040805@leemhuis.info>
	<46FAA5A5.6040306@fedoraproject.org>
Message-ID: <20070926134749.2a016e30@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:02:05 +0530
Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > 
> > For example -- but I'd prefer something like "This spec files is public
> > domain"
> 
> I would prefer we put in under a permissive license like MIT X11 so that 
> we get credit for the work we enable.

+1.  Not fond of public domain.  MIT X11 or BSD are fine.

josh



From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org  Wed Sep 26 18:50:12 2007
From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:50:12 -0500
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
Message-ID: <20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:18:15 -0700
Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 12:46 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:24:00 -0700
> > Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 17:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Further questions arise from Fedora maintainers reusing/modifying
> > > > upstream specs and/or specs from other origins (e.g. other distros). 
> > > > They can be covered by other copyrights/licenses (e.g. the GPL).
> > > 
> > > Since spec files are specific to RPM packaging, could it be better if
> > > rpm.org set the standard?  It could be a bigger first step toward all
> > > sources of spec files being license compatible.
> > 
> > What?  That's the equivalent of saying that the GNU Make project should
> > set the copyright on all makefiles...
> 
> No, it's not.

How is it not?  rpm.org is the upstream for rpm.  Spec files are used
to build RPMs and are interpreted by the rpm program.  Makefiles are
interpreted by make.

Explain please.

(btw, if you mean rpmdevtools fine.  We can stop talking then, because
that I would agree with.)

josh



From gdk at redhat.com  Wed Sep 26 19:13:18 2007
From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Josh Boyer wrote:

>>>>> Further questions arise from Fedora maintainers reusing/modifying
>>>>> upstream specs and/or specs from other origins (e.g. other distros).
>>>>> They can be covered by other copyrights/licenses (e.g. the GPL).
>>>>
>>>> Since spec files are specific to RPM packaging, could it be better if
>>>> rpm.org set the standard?  It could be a bigger first step toward all
>>>> sources of spec files being license compatible.
>>>
>>> What?  That's the equivalent of saying that the GNU Make project should
>>> set the copyright on all makefiles...
>>
>> No, it's not.
>
> How is it not?  rpm.org is the upstream for rpm.  Spec files are used
> to build RPMs and are interpreted by the rpm program.  Makefiles are
> interpreted by make.
>
> Explain please.

I don't think there's any clear right answer or wrong answer.  There is 
merely the expedient answer that everyone can (a) readily understand and 
(b) live with.  Because really, how important is this issue?  Just because 
people want to know the answer, it does not necessarily follow that people 
care deeply what that answer *is*.

Having a spec file follow the license of the content it's written to 
describe seems like a sensible idea to me.

Having a spec file be completely public domain also makes sense to me.

Having a spec file be BSD so that the original author gets credit for 
writing the spec file also makes sense to me.

But really, how deeply should we care?  Maybe it's best to ask Spot to 
make a call.  He's "the licensing guy".  Let him make a sensible decision 
and move on.

--g

-- 
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"



From jkeating at redhat.com  Wed Sep 26 19:27:22 2007
From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:27:22 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20070926152722.77189b85@redhat.com>

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
Greg DeKoenigsberg <gdk at redhat.com> wrote:

> But really, how deeply should we care?  Maybe it's best to ask Spot
> to make a call.  He's "the licensing guy".  Let him make a sensible
> decision and move on.


While it's great to define a policy for Fedora, I think some of the
pressure on this issue is coming from places where Fedora maintainers
have taken specs from and modified them enough to work in Fedora.
Sometimes there is attribution, sometimes there isn't.  This led the
jpackage folks to explicitly license their specs, not sure what other
projects would do.

Personally I think this is a different issue than what /we/ should
license our specs from.  I think we need to have a clear guideline that
states if we took a spec either in part or in whole from some other
project, attribution should be given in the spec itself.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070926/256cfa94/attachment.sig>

From rc040203 at freenet.de  Thu Sep 27 04:50:37 2007
From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:50:37 +0200
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
Message-ID: <1190868638.2982.77.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>

On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 19:51 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 26.09.2007 18:24, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 17:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > 
> >> Further questions arise from Fedora maintainers reusing/modifying
> >> upstream specs and/or specs from other origins (e.g. other distros). 
> >> They can be covered by other copyrights/licenses (e.g. the GPL).
> > Since spec files are specific to RPM packaging, could it be better if
> > rpm.org set the standard?  It could be a bigger first step toward all
> > sources of spec files being license compatible.
> 
> Different projects and contributors might want to put spec files under
> different licenses, so I don't like that idea to much.
Right, but it's out of your influence.

My view on this: 
* rpmbuild is kind of a compiler. 
* specs are written in a programming language
* specs are rpmbuild's input/sources files, covered by a licensing of
their own.


That said, I consider
* src.rpms to be combined works, combining 
- "sources", i.e. subject to upstream's licensing/copyright.
- specs, being covered by licensing of its own.
- modifications to "sources" (e.g. patches). 
These are required to be covered by a licensing which is compatible to
"sources". It they are inlined in specs, the specs also must be covered
by a license compatible to "sources" upstream.


* binary rpms to be derived works from "sources" upstream and "spec"
upstream.
=> Both licenses must be compatible.

> rpm.org on the other hand could guide everyone and provide a "sane
> default" maybe.
IMO, this would be as questionable as a text processor writing a
guide-line on text documents or a compiler doing the same on
programs/libraries.

Setting a "default" or letting using "rpm.org's rpmbuild" imply a
license on specs would be fairly silly and counterproductive, IMO.

Instead, I'd prefer if *.specs were considered source files as any other
source files, i.e. "intellectual property" of their authors with all
common legal strings attached to it.

May-be it would be helpful, if Fedora's EULA was added a sentence
stating a default license. Say, something similar to "unless otherwise
stated, Fedora *.specs are considered to be licensed <to be
specified>". 

Ralf




From fedora at leemhuis.info  Thu Sep 27 04:52:43 2007
From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:52:43 +0200
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <46FB371B.1060904@leemhuis.info>

On 26.09.2007 21:13, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> 
> I don't think there's any clear right answer or wrong answer.  There is 
> merely the expedient answer that everyone can (a) readily understand and 
> (b) live with.  Because really, how important is this issue?  Just because 
> people want to know the answer, it does not necessarily follow that people 
> care deeply what that answer *is*.

Well, the answer IMHO not important for us, but *is* important for other
parties that might want to pick one of our spec files, modify it and
redistribute it today. They want to be safe that they are free to use
that stuff even in ten years from now, when RH might have been bought by
<insert some evil software company> and starts suing people.

Being safe that you don't get sued today, tomorrow or in ten years from
now if you took ten lines out of a spec files or a simple script that
might be copyright-protectable IMHO is an important part of open source.
That why most people even put licenses in simple scripts.

Take for example /usr/bin/rpmls from rpmdevtools -- it's license is 15
Lines long for 19 lines of code. Are 19 lines copyright-protectable? I
don't know, but I suppose at least some judges in some countries of this
world might say it is. But because it has a license I can be on the safe
side if I take that code for something else as long as I obey its license.

> Having a spec file follow the license of the content it's written to 
> describe seems like a sensible idea to me.
> 
> Having a spec file be completely public domain also makes sense to me.
> 
> Having a spec file be BSD so that the original author gets credit for 
> writing the spec file also makes sense to me.

+1 (albeit I prefer one of the last two or a MIT/X11-style)

CU
thl



From jspaleta at gmail.com  Thu Sep 27 13:13:12 2007
From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:13:12 -0800
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <604aa7910709270613u4fa2facav6db840d558f24d26@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/26/07, Greg DeKoenigsberg <gdk at redhat.com> wrote:
> Having a spec file be BSD so that the original author gets credit for
> writing the spec file also makes sense to me.
>
> But really, how deeply should we care?  Maybe it's best to ask Spot to
> make a call.  He's "the licensing guy".  Let him make a sensible decision
> and move on.

I there are there two different issues here. The licensing and giving
credit to contributors to the spec files from which our current
offerings are based.  How much should we care about the licensing
policy? Personally I don't think the licensing of the specs matters at
all. But I think from a PR and morale standpoint finding a way to give
credit where credit is due matters a lot to this community centric
project...even if such credit is not a mandated requirement by the
governing license.

The licensing issue is one of legal requirements and policy (its not
even clear to me specs are copyrightable content) which is orthogonal
to credit. We could just as easily pick a licensing policy that
doesn't mandate credit and end up not solving the underlying problem.

Here are the fundamental questions that I keep coming back to:

Is it ethically wrong for me as a Fedora packager to take an existing
spec file without an explicit license from another location as the
base for the spec file I plan to submit for review?  The pit of my
stomach says no.

Is it ethically wrong for me to do so without giving credit to the
original spec file author?
The pit of my stomach says most likely.

What is the best way to give credit when re-basing the spec file for
fedora submission?
Well off the top of my head, I can do it in the changelog entry for
the specfile or I can do it in the cvs commit entry.  Is either one
better than the other? And if there is a best practices method can we
make it part of the new submission checklist procedures to remind new
contributors that giving credit where credit is due for the spec file
helps make for healthier community relations?

-jef"Speaking of ethics... is it wrong to be happy that my
father-in-law is in the hospital prepping for surgery because the
hospital waiting area has free wifi that I can use to catch up on
email?"spaleta



From gdk at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 13:36:13 2007
From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:36:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <604aa7910709270613u4fa2facav6db840d558f24d26@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
	<604aa7910709270613u4fa2facav6db840d558f24d26@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709270930270.14697@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

> Is it ethically wrong for me as a Fedora packager to take an existing
> spec file without an explicit license from another location as the
> base for the spec file I plan to submit for review?  The pit of my
> stomach says no.
>
> Is it ethically wrong for me to do so without giving credit to the
> original spec file author?
>
> The pit of my stomach says most likely.
>
> What is the best way to give credit when re-basing the spec file for
> fedora submission?
>
> Well off the top of my head, I can do it in the changelog entry for
> the specfile or I can do it in the cvs commit entry.  Is either one
> better than the other? And if there is a best practices method can we
> make it part of the new submission checklist procedures to remind new
> contributors that giving credit where credit is due for the spec file
> helps make for healthier community relations?

Seems like most people agree with this.

Simple policy decision, then, designed to deal with unlicensed, and 
therefore presumably public domain, spec files:  "If you take a spec file 
from someone else, be sure that attribution is included.  If it is *not* 
included, include the following text: 'based on a specfile by <foo> at the 
<bar> project.' If you don't do this, you're a schmuck, and the punishment 
is to (a) fix it immediately, and (b) wear the Hat of Schmuck."  And yes, 
put it in the review process.

As far as actual licensing goes, I still think it's a matter for Spot. 
Attribution is pretty much implicit in every licensing scheme anywhere 
anyway.

--g

(And no, I don't have a Hat of Schmuck handy.  But I might be able to fit 
one in my budget.)

-- 
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"



From mmcgrath at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 13:36:39 2007
From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:36:39 -0500
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709270930270.14697@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>	<604aa7910709270613u4fa2facav6db840d558f24d26@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709270930270.14697@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <46FBB1E7.6020601@redhat.com>

Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> Seems like most people agree with this.
>
> Simple policy decision, then, designed to deal with unlicensed, and 
> therefore presumably public domain, spec files:  "If you take a spec 
> file from someone else, be sure that attribution is included.  If it 
> is *not* included, include the following text: 'based on a specfile by 
> <foo> at the <bar> project.' If you don't do this, you're a schmuck, 
> and the punishment is to (a) fix it immediately, and (b) wear the Hat 
> of Schmuck."  And yes, put it in the review process.
>
> As far as actual licensing goes, I still think it's a matter for Spot. 
> Attribution is pretty much implicit in every licensing scheme anywhere 
> anyway.

Have we had or do we know of any actual complaints about this or are we 
oiling a wheel that doesn't actually squeak?  I can appreciate the 
perception of the problem but I haven't seen anyone actually complain.

    -Mike



From jkeating at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 09:42:14 2007
From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:42:14 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <46FBB1E7.6020601@redhat.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
	<604aa7910709270613u4fa2facav6db840d558f24d26@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709270930270.14697@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
	<46FBB1E7.6020601@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20070927054214.4e160481@redhat.com>

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:36:39 -0500
Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:

> Have we had or do we know of any actual complaints about this or are
> we oiling a wheel that doesn't actually squeak?  I can appreciate the 
> perception of the problem but I haven't seen anyone actually complain.

There have been complaints.  I'm not sure how public or which medium
the complaint was made on (nor can I remember the ones I saw) but yes,
there are complaints and it is a real issue we should try to address.

FWIW I like Greg's proposal, attribution is a must, as best you can (if
you get it from somebody who got it from somebody else, but they didn't
list attribution, all you can do is attribute to the place you got
it...), and let Spot figure out a license to either explicitly or
implicitly (with documentation /somewhere/ easy to find) to place all
original Fedora specs under (WTFPL!).

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070927/2ef7359b/attachment.sig>

From gdk at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 13:44:34 2007
From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:44:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <46FBB1E7.6020601@redhat.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
	<604aa7910709270613u4fa2facav6db840d558f24d26@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709270930270.14697@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
	<46FBB1E7.6020601@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709270943510.14787@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Mike McGrath wrote:

> Have we had or do we know of any actual complaints about this or are we 
> oiling a wheel that doesn't actually squeak?  I can appreciate the perception 
> of the problem but I haven't seen anyone actually complain.

I know this has been an issue with the JPackage folks for some time. 
Don't know whether that's the genesis of this particular discussion, 
though.

--g

-- 
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"



From bpepple at fedoraproject.org  Thu Sep 27 13:43:58 2007
From: bpepple at fedoraproject.org (Brian Pepple)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:43:58 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1190900638.3415.0.camel@kennedy>

On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 15:13 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> 
> But really, how deeply should we care?  Maybe it's best to ask Spot to 
> make a call.  He's "the licensing guy".  Let him make a sensible decision 
> and move on.

+1.

/B
-- 
Brian Pepple <bpepple at fedoraproject.org>

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B  CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070927/1e1a723d/attachment.sig>

From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 14:10:08 2007
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:10:08 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190868638.2982.77.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
	<1190868638.2982.77.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
Message-ID: <1190902208.3457.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>


On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 06:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> May-be it would be helpful, if Fedora's EULA was added a sentence
> stating a default license. Say, something similar to "unless otherwise
> stated, Fedora *.specs are considered to be licensed <to be
> specified>". 

I don't disagree with this, but amending the EULA is PAINFUL.
Essentially, we'd have to get everyone to resign it, and that would be
after Red Hat legal spits it out. We're talking about months of pain, at
a minimum.

~spot



From sundaram at fedoraproject.org  Thu Sep 27 14:13:28 2007
From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:43:28 +0530
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190902208.3457.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>	<1190868638.2982.77.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190902208.3457.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46FBBA88.6080009@fedoraproject.org>

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 06:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> May-be it would be helpful, if Fedora's EULA was added a sentence
>> stating a default license. Say, something similar to "unless otherwise
>> stated, Fedora *.specs are considered to be licensed <to be
>> specified>". 
> 
> I don't disagree with this, but amending the EULA is PAINFUL.
> Essentially, we'd have to get everyone to resign it, and that would be
> after Red Hat legal spits it out. We're talking about months of pain, at
> a minimum.

Everyone would have to resign it? Why?

Rahul



From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 14:33:14 2007
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:33:14 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <46FBBA88.6080009@fedoraproject.org>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
	<1190868638.2982.77.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190902208.3457.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBBA88.6080009@fedoraproject.org>
Message-ID: <1190903594.3457.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>


On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 19:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 06:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> May-be it would be helpful, if Fedora's EULA was added a sentence
> >> stating a default license. Say, something similar to "unless otherwise
> >> stated, Fedora *.specs are considered to be licensed <to be
> >> specified>". 
> > 
> > I don't disagree with this, but amending the EULA is PAINFUL.
> > Essentially, we'd have to get everyone to resign it, and that would be
> > after Red Hat legal spits it out. We're talking about months of pain, at
> > a minimum.
> 
> Everyone would have to resign it? Why?

Did you agree to put all of your contributed spec files to a specific
license as part of the original EULA? 

No? :) Then you'd need to resign it. It's not a living document, we
cannot simply add things to it ex post facto and have them apply.

~spot



From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 14:34:11 2007
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:34:11 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190903594.3457.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
	<1190868638.2982.77.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190902208.3457.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBBA88.6080009@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190903594.3457.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1190903651.3457.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>


On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:33 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 19:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 06:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > >> May-be it would be helpful, if Fedora's EULA was added a sentence
> > >> stating a default license. Say, something similar to "unless otherwise
> > >> stated, Fedora *.specs are considered to be licensed <to be
> > >> specified>". 
> > > 
> > > I don't disagree with this, but amending the EULA is PAINFUL.
> > > Essentially, we'd have to get everyone to resign it, and that would be
> > > after Red Hat legal spits it out. We're talking about months of pain, at
> > > a minimum.
> > 
> > Everyone would have to resign it? Why?
> 
> Did you agree to put all of your contributed spec files to a specific
> license as part of the original EULA? 
> 
> No? :) Then you'd need to resign it. It's not a living document, we
> cannot simply add things to it ex post facto and have them apply.

Sorry, EULA is the wrong word. CLA is what I meant to say.

~spot



From sundaram at fedoraproject.org  Thu Sep 27 14:34:30 2007
From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:04:30 +0530
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190903651.3457.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>	<1190868638.2982.77.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>	<1190902208.3457.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBBA88.6080009@fedoraproject.org>	<1190903594.3457.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190903651.3457.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46FBBF76.9040300@fedoraproject.org>

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:33 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 19:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 06:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>>> May-be it would be helpful, if Fedora's EULA was added a sentence
>>>>> stating a default license. Say, something similar to "unless otherwise
>>>>> stated, Fedora *.specs are considered to be licensed <to be
>>>>> specified>". 
>>>> I don't disagree with this, but amending the EULA is PAINFUL.
>>>> Essentially, we'd have to get everyone to resign it, and that would be
>>>> after Red Hat legal spits it out. We're talking about months of pain, at
>>>> a minimum.
>>> Everyone would have to resign it? Why?
>> Did you agree to put all of your contributed spec files to a specific
>> license as part of the original EULA? 
>>
>> No? :) Then you'd need to resign it. It's not a living document, we
>> cannot simply add things to it ex post facto and have them apply.
> 
> Sorry, EULA is the wrong word. CLA is what I meant to say.

That's exactly what I was confused about. My understanding of the CLA is 
that it applies to all contributions including the spec file and hence 
modifying the CLA is not necessary which I agree would be very painful 
to do.

Rahul



From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 14:41:11 2007
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:41:11 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709270930270.14697@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
	<604aa7910709270613u4fa2facav6db840d558f24d26@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709270930270.14697@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1190904071.3457.47.camel@localhost.localdomain>


On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 09:36 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:

> Simple policy decision, then, designed to deal with unlicensed, and 
> therefore presumably public domain, spec files:  "If you take a spec file 
> from someone else, be sure that attribution is included.  If it is *not* 
> included, include the following text: 'based on a specfile by <foo> at the 
> <bar> project.' If you don't do this, you're a schmuck, and the punishment 
> is to (a) fix it immediately, and (b) wear the Hat of Schmuck."  And yes, 
> put it in the review process.
> 
> As far as actual licensing goes, I still think it's a matter for Spot. 
> Attribution is pretty much implicit in every licensing scheme anywhere 
> anyway.
> 
> --g
> 
> (And no, I don't have a Hat of Schmuck handy.  But I might be able to fit 
> one in my budget.)

You guys give me all the fun stuff to deal with when I come back from
vacation. :)

The problems:

1. Spec files don't have binary/source forms. It's more like a shell
script. We'd need to be careful to use a license that reflects this.

2. The license of the spec file does NOT have any bearing on the bits
inside the RPM.

3. It is NEVER safe to assume that because something is unlicensed that
it is Public Domain. You have to explicitly put things into the Public
Domain by failing to Copyright the work within 5 years of publication
(unless you're the US Government, for which all works are automatically
PD). Very very very little software is in the Public Domain.

IMHO, no existing license is a good fit for spec files.

If I was to work up something especially for spec files, I would use
something like this:

*****

# Copyright (C) 2007, Red Hat, Inc.
#
# This package specification is provided 'as-is', without any express or
# implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any
# damages arising from the use of this specification.
#
# Permission is granted to anyone to use this specification for any purpose,
# including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
# freely, subject to the following restrictions:
# 
# 1. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
#    misrepresented as being the original specification.
# 2. This notice may not be removed or altered from any specification.
# 3. This license only applies to the package specification, and does 
#    not have any bearing on any files included within packages 
#    generated from this specification.

*****

~spot



From rc040203 at freenet.de  Thu Sep 27 14:42:55 2007
From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:42:55 +0200
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190903651.3457.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
	<1190868638.2982.77.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190902208.3457.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBBA88.6080009@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190903594.3457.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190903651.3457.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1190904175.4323.55.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:34 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:33 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 19:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 06:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > >> May-be it would be helpful, if Fedora's EULA was added a sentence
> > > >> stating a default license. Say, something similar to "unless otherwise
> > > >> stated, Fedora *.specs are considered to be licensed <to be
> > > >> specified>". 
> > > > 
> > > > I don't disagree with this, but amending the EULA is PAINFUL.
> > > > Essentially, we'd have to get everyone to resign it, and that would be
> > > > after Red Hat legal spits it out. We're talking about months of pain, at
> > > > a minimum.
> > > 
> > > Everyone would have to resign it? Why?
> > 
> > Did you agree to put all of your contributed spec files to a specific
> > license as part of the original EULA? 
> > 
> > No? :) Then you'd need to resign it. It's not a living document, we
> > cannot simply add things to it ex post facto and have them apply.
> 
> Sorry, EULA is the wrong word. CLA is what I meant to say.
That's why I was talking about EULA.

You could (presumably) easily add a note (attendum) stating something
similar to:
"Unless otherwise stated inside, the *.spec files found inside of
*.src.rpms can be assumed to be covered by following license ...."

Ralf




From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 14:52:34 2007
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:52:34 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <46FBBF76.9040300@fedoraproject.org>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
	<1190868638.2982.77.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190902208.3457.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBBA88.6080009@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190903594.3457.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190903651.3457.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBBF76.9040300@fedoraproject.org>
Message-ID: <1190904754.3457.60.camel@localhost.localdomain>


On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 20:04 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> That's exactly what I was confused about. My understanding of the CLA is 
> that it applies to all contributions including the spec file and hence 
> modifying the CLA is not necessary which I agree would be very painful 
> to do.

Technically, the CLA says that all of the spec files in Fedora (since
they are contributions) are under the following license:

*****

1. Package License:
In accordance with the Fedora Project Contributor License Agreement, 
this package specification is under: 

(a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free,
irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute this
package specification and such derivative works

(b) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free,
irrevocable (subject to Section 2) patent license to make, have made,
use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer this package
specification and derivative works thereof, where such license applies
only to those patent claims licensable by the contributor that are
necessarily infringed by this specification alone or by combination of
this specification with the work to which you submitted the
specification. Except for the license granted in this section, the
contributor reserves all right, title and interest in and to the
specification.

2. Reciprocity. 
As of the date any such litigation is filed, the contributor's patent
grant shall immediately terminate with respect to any party that
institutes patent litigation against the contributor (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the
specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement.

*****

But wow. That is not what I want every spec file to have to carry. I'd
much rather leverage our right to sublicense, and use the other license
I sent out this morning.

My concern is this: I can't force everyone to sublicense to my license.
The CLA trumps me. Every Fedora contributor has agreed that the above
license applies to their spec file (as a contribution).

~spot



From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 14:53:27 2007
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:53:27 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190904175.4323.55.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
	<1190868638.2982.77.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190902208.3457.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBBA88.6080009@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190903594.3457.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190903651.3457.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190904175.4323.55.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
Message-ID: <1190904807.3457.62.camel@localhost.localdomain>


On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 16:42 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:34 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:33 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 19:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 06:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > >> May-be it would be helpful, if Fedora's EULA was added a sentence
> > > > >> stating a default license. Say, something similar to "unless otherwise
> > > > >> stated, Fedora *.specs are considered to be licensed <to be
> > > > >> specified>". 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't disagree with this, but amending the EULA is PAINFUL.
> > > > > Essentially, we'd have to get everyone to resign it, and that would be
> > > > > after Red Hat legal spits it out. We're talking about months of pain, at
> > > > > a minimum.
> > > > 
> > > > Everyone would have to resign it? Why?
> > > 
> > > Did you agree to put all of your contributed spec files to a specific
> > > license as part of the original EULA? 
> > > 
> > > No? :) Then you'd need to resign it. It's not a living document, we
> > > cannot simply add things to it ex post facto and have them apply.
> > 
> > Sorry, EULA is the wrong word. CLA is what I meant to say.
> That's why I was talking about EULA.
> 
> You could (presumably) easily add a note (attendum) stating something
> similar to:
> "Unless otherwise stated inside, the *.spec files found inside of
> *.src.rpms can be assumed to be covered by following license ...."

I can only do this if every spec file contributor agrees to that
sublicense.

~spot



From rc040203 at freenet.de  Thu Sep 27 14:56:59 2007
From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:56:59 +0200
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190904071.3457.47.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
	<604aa7910709270613u4fa2facav6db840d558f24d26@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709270930270.14697@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
	<1190904071.3457.47.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1190905020.4323.63.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:41 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 09:36 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:

> 1. Spec files don't have binary/source forms. It's more like a shell
> script.
I disagree. They are source-code to the "rpmbuild-compilers".
It internally expands them to scripts, but this an implementation detail
(many compilers do similar things)

> 2. The license of the spec file does NOT have any bearing on the bits
> inside the RPM.
ACK.

> 3. It is NEVER safe to assume that because something is unlicensed that
> it is Public Domain.
ACK

> IMHO, no existing license is a good fit for spec files.

IMO, SuSE's approach is superior:
http://en.opensuse.org/SUSE_Package_Conventions/RPM_Style#1.1._Initial_Comments

Unlike your proposal, it additionally avoids conflicts with "upstream
specs" and licensing conflicts between *.tar.*, *.diffs and *.spec
inside of the src.rpm.

Ralf




From rc040203 at freenet.de  Thu Sep 27 15:01:07 2007
From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:01:07 +0200
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190904807.3457.62.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
	<1190868638.2982.77.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190902208.3457.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBBA88.6080009@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190903594.3457.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190903651.3457.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190904175.4323.55.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190904807.3457.62.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1190905267.4323.66.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:53 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 16:42 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:34 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:33 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 19:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > > > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 06:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > > >> May-be it would be helpful, if Fedora's EULA was added a sentence
> > > > > >> stating a default license. Say, something similar to "unless otherwise
> > > > > >> stated, Fedora *.specs are considered to be licensed <to be
> > > > > >> specified>". 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I don't disagree with this, but amending the EULA is PAINFUL.
> > > > > > Essentially, we'd have to get everyone to resign it, and that would be
> > > > > > after Red Hat legal spits it out. We're talking about months of pain, at
> > > > > > a minimum.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Everyone would have to resign it? Why?
> > > > 
> > > > Did you agree to put all of your contributed spec files to a specific
> > > > license as part of the original EULA? 
> > > > 
> > > > No? :) Then you'd need to resign it. It's not a living document, we
> > > > cannot simply add things to it ex post facto and have them apply.
> > > 
> > > Sorry, EULA is the wrong word. CLA is what I meant to say.
> > That's why I was talking about EULA.
> > 
> > You could (presumably) easily add a note (attendum) stating something
> > similar to:
> > "Unless otherwise stated inside, the *.spec files found inside of
> > *.src.rpms can be assumed to be covered by following license ...."
> 
> I can only do this if every spec file contributor agrees to that
> sublicense.

Then copy the corresponding section of the CLA into the section of the
EULA or even copy the CLA into the EULA and let it a "spec section refer
to the corresponding sections of the CLA".

Ralf




From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 15:10:12 2007
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:10:12 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190905267.4323.66.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
	<1190868638.2982.77.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190902208.3457.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBBA88.6080009@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190903594.3457.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190903651.3457.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190904175.4323.55.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190904807.3457.62.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190905267.4323.66.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
Message-ID: <1190905812.3457.70.camel@localhost.localdomain>


On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 17:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> Then copy the corresponding section of the CLA into the section of the
> EULA or even copy the CLA into the EULA and let it a "spec section refer
> to the corresponding sections of the CLA".

EULA is what the End user recipient agrees to. Blanket Sub-licensing
Fedora contributions (spec files) would have to be agreed to by the
contributors, thus, we'd need to amend the CLA.

~spot



From mspevack at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 15:14:17 2007
From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:14:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: spec files and OPL
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709271107120.23179@localhost.localdomain>

All,

My apologies for not having time to dig through all the messages in the 
current thread about the spec files.  I am leaving for Ohio Linux Fest 
tomorrow and the preparations for my speech there take priority.

But I have talked with Mark Webbink about the questions around licensing 
the spec files.

One of the possibilities that I mentioned to him was simply licensing 
all of the spec files in Fedora under the OPL.  Mark seemed to think 
that this might be a simple way to meet the goal of ensuring that the 
spec files are all fully redistributable.

Is that an acceptable solution?  Would it solve the concerns that people 
have been raising?

Thanks,
Max



From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 15:18:14 2007
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:18:14 -0400
Subject: spec files and OPL
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709271107120.23179@localhost.localdomain>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709271107120.23179@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1190906294.3457.74.camel@localhost.localdomain>


On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 11:14 -0400, Max Spevack wrote:
> All,
> 
> My apologies for not having time to dig through all the messages in the 
> current thread about the spec files.  I am leaving for Ohio Linux Fest 
> tomorrow and the preparations for my speech there take priority.
> 
> But I have talked with Mark Webbink about the questions around licensing 
> the spec files.
> 
> One of the possibilities that I mentioned to him was simply licensing 
> all of the spec files in Fedora under the OPL.  Mark seemed to think 
> that this might be a simple way to meet the goal of ensuring that the 
> spec files are all fully redistributable.
> 
> Is that an acceptable solution?  Would it solve the concerns that people 
> have been raising?

The OPL is a documentation license, and not appropriate for spec files.

~spot



From rc040203 at freenet.de  Thu Sep 27 15:24:48 2007
From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:24:48 +0200
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190905812.3457.70.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
	<1190868638.2982.77.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190902208.3457.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBBA88.6080009@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190903594.3457.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190903651.3457.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190904175.4323.55.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190904807.3457.62.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190905267.4323.66.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190905812.3457.70.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <1190906688.4323.83.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 11:10 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 17:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> > Then copy the corresponding section of the CLA into the section of the
> > EULA or even copy the CLA into the EULA and let it a "spec section refer
> > to the corresponding sections of the CLA".
> 
> EULA is what the End user recipient agrees to. Blanket Sub-licensing
> Fedora contributions (spec files) would have to be agreed to by the
> contributors, thus, we'd need to amend the CLA.
I fail to understand this, because

a) The problem of "Fedora spec-file licensing" is a user's problem. I.e.
people not having read nor ever seen the CLA.

b) Contributors all have signed the CLA, so it's your freedom to do with
these contributions (such as the spec files) whatever you want.

I.e. the whole problem condenses to make users aware about the fact that
*.specs are covered by the CLA.

The only possibility I see, is to communicate this CLA to end-users
(Those people being covered by the EULA).

Ralf




From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 15:32:03 2007
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:32:03 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <1190906688.4323.83.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<80d7e4090709171500g74dbd3cbh82d1b751538fba50@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070918103015.2daac3f9@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709220254400.23787@horsea.3ti.be>
	<46F4F5D9.8030002@leemhuis.info>
	<1190753986.4114.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>	<46FA9C0E.2080803@leemhuis.info>
	<1190868638.2982.77.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190902208.3457.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBBA88.6080009@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190903594.3457.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190903651.3457.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190904175.4323.55.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190904807.3457.62.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190905267.4323.66.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190905812.3457.70.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1190906688.4323.83.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
Message-ID: <1190907123.3457.84.camel@localhost.localdomain>


On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 17:24 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> The only possibility I see, is to communicate this CLA to end-users
> (Those people being covered by the EULA).

We could put this in the EULA, pending RH Legal approval.

*****

1. Package Specification License:
In accordance with the Fedora Project Contributor License Agreement, 
all Fedora package specifications are under: 

(a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free,
irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute package
specifications and such derivative works.

(b) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free,
irrevocable (subject to Section 2) patent license to make, have made,
use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer this package
specification and derivative works thereof, where such license applies
only to those patent claims licensable by the contributor that are
necessarily infringed by this specification alone or by combination of
this specification with the work to which you submitted the
specification. Except for the license granted in this section, the
contributor reserves all right, title and interest in and to the
specification.

2. Reciprocity. 
As of the date any such litigation is filed, the contributor's patent
grant shall immediately terminate with respect to any party that
institutes patent litigation against the contributor (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the
specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement.

*****

We could put this text in the EULA to make things slightly more clear,
but it does not change the license status of the Fedora package spec
files (they have always been under this license).

~spot



From sundaram at fedoraproject.org  Thu Sep 27 15:40:17 2007
From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:10:17 +0530
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
Message-ID: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>

Hi


Fedora Games SIG has been working on a games spin (Live DVD) of Fedora 
which is currently 3.2 GB in size and is packed with a lot of Free 
software games.  There is ongoing discussions on fine tuning the package 
set among other details but what is available now is suitable for wider 
testing and feedback.

This could useful for demonstrating the viability of Free software games 
in Fedora, just installing them and having fun and also testing out the 
capabilities and compatibility of your system including video cards 
before buying out a Linux and free software friendly system.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games/GamesLive

We would like to request Fedora Project Board's approval on having this 
as part of the official release for Fedora 8 starting with test 3.

Rahul



From katzj at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 15:59:31 2007
From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:59:31 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
Message-ID: <1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 21:10 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> We would like to request Fedora Project Board's approval on having this 
> as part of the official release for Fedora 8 starting with test 3.

Honestly?  I think it's too late for F8[1].  The other live images that
are being done were pushed to have things that were testable for the
feature freeze (test2).  This coming in at the last minute means that
they're going to say why couldn't they wait.

And really, there's something bigger here.  We need to be able to have
groups (such as the Games SIG) able to create and build their own live
images and make them available without requiring the overhead of 
1) Release engineering being involved to actually do the build[2]
2) Being able to do their own testing, etc.  As it is, Will can't try
all the combinations of everything.  Adding more doesn't help.
3) Be able to have releases that aren't carried by all mirrors.  Because
the explosion of images is going to be a lot of space on mirrors which
isn't necessarily practical given how "popular" they are

Also, we really need to be able to have a better way of guiding people
to the best option for them to download...  with Fedora 7, things had
enough confusion.  As we add more to the matrix, it only gets more so.

Jeremy

[1] At least, to have as a spin that's done by release engineering,
carried by all the mirrors, etc.  I'd love to see it done, though, and
have us solve some of the problems so that we can make it easier for
groups to start up their own spins like this
[2] I only scale so much.  Right now, Fedora 8 is already at twice as
many live images to build and test as Fedora 7... and Fedora 7's number
was plenty for one person



From sundaram at fedoraproject.org  Thu Sep 27 16:13:33 2007
From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:43:33 +0530
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46FBD6AD.2000805@fedoraproject.org>

Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 21:10 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> We would like to request Fedora Project Board's approval on having this 
>> as part of the official release for Fedora 8 starting with test 3.
> 
> Honestly?  I think it's too late for F8[1].  The other live images that
> are being done were pushed to have things that were testable for the
> feature freeze (test2).  This coming in at the last minute means that
> they're going to say why couldn't they wait.

I am not sure there is anything specific about games spin that requires 
testing. All the packages were those that were available in the Fedora 
repository already and unlike the other spins there is just a assorted 
set of games that doesn't have any complex interaction issues.

> And really, there's something bigger here.  We need to be able to have
> groups (such as the Games SIG) able to create and build their own live
> images and make them available without requiring the overhead of 
> 1) Release engineering being involved to actually do the build[2]
> 2) Being able to do their own testing, etc.  As it is, Will can't try
> all the combinations of everything.  Adding more doesn't help.
> 3) Be able to have releases that aren't carried by all mirrors.  Because
> the explosion of images is going to be a lot of space on mirrors which
> isn't necessarily practical given how "popular" they are
> 
> Also, we really need to be able to have a better way of guiding people
> to the best option for them to download...  with Fedora 7, things had
> enough confusion.  As we add more to the matrix, it only gets more so.

You could do a torrent only release or let mirrors willing to carry them 
do so but within the constraints of release engineering, need for 
testing, more hard disk space etc, is there any alternative solution 
that would acceptable?

Can I host this spin elsewhere and call it Fedora games spin? I would 
like to have a workable solution to this.

Rahul





From mmcgrath at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 16:16:40 2007
From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:16:40 -0500
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>

Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 21:10 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>   
>> We would like to request Fedora Project Board's approval on having this 
>> as part of the official release for Fedora 8 starting with test 3.
>>     
>
> Honestly?  I think it's too late for F8[1].  The other live images that
> are being done were pushed to have things that were testable for the
> feature freeze (test2).  This coming in at the last minute means that
> they're going to say why couldn't they wait.
>
> And really, there's something bigger here.  We need to be able to have
> groups (such as the Games SIG) able to create and build their own live
> images and make them available without requiring the overhead of 
> 1) Release engineering being involved to actually do the build[2]
> 2) Being able to do their own testing, etc.  As it is, Will can't try
> all the combinations of everything.  Adding more doesn't help.
> 3) Be able to have releases that aren't carried by all mirrors.  Because
> the explosion of images is going to be a lot of space on mirrors which
> isn't necessarily practical given how "popular" they are
>
> Also, we really need to be able to have a better way of guiding people
> to the best option for them to download...  with Fedora 7, things had
> enough confusion.  As we add more to the matrix, it only gets more so.
>
> Jeremy
>
> [1] At least, to have as a spin that's done by release engineering,
> carried by all the mirrors, etc.  I'd love to see it done, though, and
> have us solve some of the problems so that we can make it easier for
> groups to start up their own spins like this
> [2] I only scale so much.  Right now, Fedora 8 is already at twice as
> many live images to build and test as Fedora 7... and Fedora 7's number
> was plenty for one person
>   

I'd actually like to suggest we do the custom spins over torrents 
because it will allow us to judge some popularity and its a much lower 
barrier to entry.  I'm actually working to find some space dedicated to 
a more robust torrent server (possibly one with as much as 1T of space) 
which could make hosting that stuff much easier.

Also, I think custom spins don't need to follow the same guidelines as 
Fedora proper.  I don't know why, for example, a spin couldn't be 
released in the middle of a cycle.  The question of how something gets 
from the SIG to the torrent is still questionable in my mind.  I've not 
looked at wevisor that much but I know a web based version is being 
planned.  In the meantime perhaps they could work with the 
Infrastructure team once the spin has been approved until a permanent 
solution can be put in place?

My concern is that stifling the custom spins very early in life will 
dissuade others from participating.  Even if in the future a custom spin 
just becomes a set of default installed packages + cool custom theme, I 
think people will like that.  Though the question of QA is a good one.  
I've not looked at how customized (and therefore different) from Fedora 
a spin can get to the point where it'd need a separate QA path.

    -Mike



From gdk at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 16:28:20 2007
From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:28:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709271221210.16159@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Jeremy Katz wrote:

> And really, there's something bigger here.  We need to be able to have
> groups (such as the Games SIG) able to create and build their own live
> images and make them available without requiring the overhead of
>
> 1) Release engineering being involved to actually do the build[2]

Yep.

> 2) Being able to do their own testing, etc.  As it is, Will can't try
> all the combinations of everything.  Adding more doesn't help.

Yep.

> 3) Be able to have releases that aren't carried by all mirrors.  Because
> the explosion of images is going to be a lot of space on mirrors which
> isn't necessarily practical given how "popular" they are

No question.  These spins should be BitTorrent only.

These questions point to a long-standing question that we've never 
answered:

What does it mean to be "a Fedora spin"?

We've gone 'round and 'round on this.  We don't want to give everything 
"Official Fedora Status," whatever that means... because we want anything 
with "Official Fedora Status," whatever that means, to "Not Suck," 
whatever that means.

The point of Infinite Fedora Spins is *precisely not* to put releng in the 
path of every spin.

So here's a proposal straight out of my ass.

1. OFFICIAL FEDORA SPINS.  A small handful -- maybe even only one.  They 
go through releng and QA.  They go to mirrors.

2. A FEDORA SIG SPIN.  As many spins as there are SIGs.  The leadership of 
the SIG figures out how to take ownership of the spin.  We provide 
infrastructure to build the spin.  SIG members are responsible for 
releng/QA tasks.  They are hosted on BitTorrent.  Examples: Games, Music, 
and KDE.  Yes, KDE.

Can it not be that simple?

--g

-- 
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"



From katzj at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 16:30:09 2007
From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:30:09 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709271221210.16159@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709271221210.16159@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1190910609.17693.27.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 12:28 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> 1. OFFICIAL FEDORA SPINS.  A small handful -- maybe even only one.  They 
> go through releng and QA.  They go to mirrors.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes? :)

> 2. A FEDORA SIG SPIN.  As many spins as there are SIGs.  The leadership of 
> the SIG figures out how to take ownership of the spin.  We provide 
> infrastructure to build the spin.  SIG members are responsible for 
> releng/QA tasks.  They are hosted on BitTorrent.  Examples: Games, Music, 
> and KDE.  Yes, KDE.

I'd actually rather see it that different SIGs can do a spin if they
want and then there's just a "Spin Review Group" or some such that
actually reviews the configs being used, says "yeah, that looks fine"
and signs off on it.  This would include verification that only Fedora
packages are being used (since otherwise, can't be called Fedora and use
the trademark, etc)

> Can it not be that simple?

I think that not only it _can_, but that it should be.  And that it will
end up working a lot better as more people are doing more of these

Jeremy



From jkeating at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 12:41:31 2007
From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:41:31 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20070927084131.35012107@redhat.com>

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:16:40 -0500
Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:

> Also, I think custom spins don't need to follow the same guidelines
> as Fedora proper.  I don't know why, for example, a spin couldn't be 
> released in the middle of a cycle. 

Installation of said live spin may not work due to userland/kernel
moving beyond what anaconda would handle.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070927/488ef886/attachment.sig>

From katzj at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 16:40:38 2007
From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:40:38 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 11:16 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> I'd actually like to suggest we do the custom spins over torrents 
> because it will allow us to judge some popularity and its a much lower 
> barrier to entry.  I'm actually working to find some space dedicated to 
> a more robust torrent server (possibly one with as much as 1T of space) 
> which could make hosting that stuff much easier.

Torrent seems mostly reasonable.  The only downside is that some places
block torrent access.  That has historically been the reason for not
providing things torrent-only.  But I don't think that it's a good
enough reason and that we also set up a way to "request a spin" via a
non-torrent method and then if we get a lot of that, we can revisit
also.

> Also, I think custom spins don't need to follow the same guidelines as 
> Fedora proper.  I don't know why, for example, a spin couldn't be 
> released in the middle of a cycle. 

Yep.  No good reason they can't be.

>  The question of how something gets 
> from the SIG to the torrent is still questionable in my mind.  I've not 
> looked at wevisor that much but I know a web based version is being 
> planned.  In the meantime perhaps they could work with the 
> Infrastructure team once the spin has been approved until a permanent 
> solution can be put in place?

Right, this is the biggest stumbling block.  We had talked about getting
some hardware and moving doing the release spins to hardware in the
colo.  If we did that, we could also do the live spins like this there.
And I have a few ideas on how we can make that (relatively) reasonable
and safe, but they're a bit grotty[1]

> My concern is that stifling the custom spins very early in life will 
> dissuade others from participating.  Even if in the future a custom spin 
> just becomes a set of default installed packages + cool custom theme, I 
> think people will like that.  

Yep

> Though the question of QA is a good one.  
> I've not looked at how customized (and therefore different) from Fedora 
> a spin can get to the point where it'd need a separate QA path.

I'm okay (Will will have to speak for himself though) if the QA is done
as part of the SIG who's working on it.  That plus review of the config
should be pretty good for finding problems.

Jeremy

[1] Sadly, mock can't really help as mock's "dealing" with SELinux runs
very counter to what's needed for SELinux with live image creation. 



From katzj at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 16:41:35 2007
From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:41:35 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <20070927084131.35012107@redhat.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>  <20070927084131.35012107@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1190911295.17693.41.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 08:41 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:16:40 -0500
> Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Also, I think custom spins don't need to follow the same guidelines
> > as Fedora proper.  I don't know why, for example, a spin couldn't be 
> > released in the middle of a cycle. 
> 
> Installation of said live spin may not work due to userland/kernel
> moving beyond what anaconda would handle.

This is actually less of a concern with live spins than with trees --
less dependencies for the installer to care about

Jeremy



From mmcgrath at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 17:21:15 2007
From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:21:15 -0500
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>

Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 11:16 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>   
>
>> Though the question of QA is a good one.  
>> I've not looked at how customized (and therefore different) from Fedora 
>> a spin can get to the point where it'd need a separate QA path.
>>     
>
> I'm okay (Will will have to speak for himself though) if the QA is done
> as part of the SIG who's working on it.  That plus review of the config
> should be pretty good for finding problems.
>   


Perhaps I'm missing something.  In order for it to be considered an 
official 'Fedora Spin' it has to only use bits in Fedora.  In order for 
it to be in Fedora it is covered by Fedora QA right?  Anything that 
works in Fedora but not in the spin I guess would fall on the SIG to fix 
but what scenarios would that occur?

    -Mike



From katzj at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 17:24:56 2007
From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:24:56 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 12:21 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 11:16 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >> Though the question of QA is a good one.  
> >> I've not looked at how customized (and therefore different) from Fedora 
> >> a spin can get to the point where it'd need a separate QA path.
> >
> > I'm okay (Will will have to speak for himself though) if the QA is done
> > as part of the SIG who's working on it.  That plus review of the config
> > should be pretty good for finding problems.
>
> Perhaps I'm missing something.  In order for it to be considered an 
> official 'Fedora Spin' it has to only use bits in Fedora.  In order for 
> it to be in Fedora it is covered by Fedora QA right?  Anything that 
> works in Fedora but not in the spin I guess would fall on the SIG to fix 
> but what scenarios would that occur?

Just because the bits are there doesn't mean that the combination of
bits boots and works.  And that's the focus of the testing --
integration testing as opposed to component testing

Jeremy



From sundaram at fedoraproject.org  Thu Sep 27 17:42:07 2007
From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:12:07 +0530
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>
	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>

Jeremy Katz wrote:

> 
> Just because the bits are there doesn't mean that the combination of
> bits boots and works.  And that's the focus of the testing --
> integration testing as opposed to component testing

How much of that applies to a games spin? What do I do to move this forward?

Rahul



From mmcgrath at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 17:57:07 2007
From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:57:07 -0500
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>
Message-ID: <46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
>
>>
>> Just because the bits are there doesn't mean that the combination of
>> bits boots and works.  And that's the focus of the testing --
>> integration testing as opposed to component testing
>
> How much of that applies to a games spin? What do I do to move this 
> forward?

Well from the Infrastructure side come up with a secure, reproducible 
mechanism to get your bits to us.  I'm not that familiar with 
revisor/pungi but is there a way to create a spin then save the configs, 
give it to us to re-create?  If so then I guess we'd just need to create 
an SCM where you (and others) could send their configs once they're 
approved.  At first I can only imagine a handful of spins that, 
hopefully, change rarely (like per release).  If thats the case I think 
we could commit some resources to doing it manually until the final 
solution is figured out[1].  I think that seems reasonable since, in the 
future, it'd probably be very similar except the building part would be 
automated.

Thoughts?

    -Mike


[1]  As a trial only, this way we can say no to people or just stop if 
we run out of resources or decide its not working out.



From sundaram at fedoraproject.org  Thu Sep 27 18:09:57 2007
From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:39:57 +0530
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>
	<46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>

Mike McGrath wrote:

> Well from the Infrastructure side come up with a secure, reproducible 
> mechanism to get your bits to us.  I'm not that familiar with 
> revisor/pungi but is there a way to create a spin then save the configs, 
> give it to us to re-create?  

Yes, of course.

"Copy the following into a .ks file. Adjust the repository configuration 
if needed and as root user, run

# livecd-creator --config <games.ks> "

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games/GamesLive

If so then I guess we'd just need to create
> an SCM where you (and others) could send their configs once they're 
> approved.  At first I can only imagine a handful of spins that, 
> hopefully, change rarely (like per release).  If thats the case I think 
> we could commit some resources to doing it manually until the final 
> solution is figured out[1].  I think that seems reasonable since, in the 
> future, it'd probably be very similar except the building part would be 
> automated.
> 
> Thoughts?

Sounds like a start to me. Would this result in a torrent only release?
Do I have to the approval of Fedora Board to call this "Fedora Games Spin"?

Rahul



From mmcgrath at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 18:27:45 2007
From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:27:45 -0500
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>	<46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
Message-ID: <46FBF621.7080407@redhat.com>

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>
>> Well from the Infrastructure side come up with a secure, reproducible 
>> mechanism to get your bits to us.  I'm not that familiar with 
>> revisor/pungi but is there a way to create a spin then save the 
>> configs, give it to us to re-create?  
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> "Copy the following into a .ks file. Adjust the repository 
> configuration if needed and as root user, run
>
> # livecd-creator --config <games.ks> "
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games/GamesLive
>
> If so then I guess we'd just need to create
>> an SCM where you (and others) could send their configs once they're 
>> approved.  At first I can only imagine a handful of spins that, 
>> hopefully, change rarely (like per release).  If thats the case I 
>> think we could commit some resources to doing it manually until the 
>> final solution is figured out[1].  I think that seems reasonable 
>> since, in the future, it'd probably be very similar except the 
>> building part would be automated.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Sounds like a start to me. Would this result in a torrent only release?
I think so yes.  I wouldn't mind talking to the rest of the 
Infrastructure team at today's meeting if you could attend (and maybe 
some other parties on the list) maybe we could just hammer it out during 
the meeting.  irc.freenode.net - #fedora-meeting at 20:00 UTC.
> Do I have to the approval of Fedora Board to call this "Fedora Games 
> Spin"?

Thats up to them and I don't even know if the process has been 
formalized.  We might have to wait till their next meeting.

    -Mike



From kanarip at kanarip.com  Thu Sep 27 18:44:05 2007
From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:44:05 +0200
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>	<46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
Message-ID: <46FBF9F5.6010904@kanarip.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
> 
>> Well from the Infrastructure side come up with a secure, reproducible
>> mechanism to get your bits to us.  I'm not that familiar with
>> revisor/pungi but is there a way to create a spin then save the
>> configs, give it to us to re-create?  
> 
> Yes, of course.
> 
> "Copy the following into a .ks file. Adjust the repository configuration
> if needed and as root user, run
> 
> # livecd-creator --config <games.ks> "
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games/GamesLive
> 

Any of the tools have a way to reproduce from a configuration files [1]
but neither of those take into account the tools itself or the sources
it uses change.

[1] Revisor Configuration for Fedora Unity respins
http://git.kanarip.com/?p=unityspin/.git

- --
Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
- -kanarip

- --
http://www.kanarip.com/
RHCE, LPIC-2, MCP, CCNA
C6B0 7FB4 43E6 CDDA D258  F70B 28DE 9FDA 9342 BF08
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG+/n0KN6f2pNCvwgRAjBPAKDL8/IlAzvouyh57vfiGXqs86sKNACbBTYt
pmu2IHniEKVRHXQbnlyPwx8=
=PHz1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From sundaram at fedoraproject.org  Thu Sep 27 18:56:59 2007
From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:26:59 +0530
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FBF621.7080407@redhat.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>	<46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
	<46FBF621.7080407@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <46FBFCFB.1010700@fedoraproject.org>

Mike McGrath wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:

>>
>> Sounds like a start to me. Would this result in a torrent only release?
> I think so yes.  I wouldn't mind talking to the rest of the 
> Infrastructure team at today's meeting if you could attend (and maybe 
> some other parties on the list) maybe we could just hammer it out during 
> the meeting.  irc.freenode.net - #fedora-meeting at 20:00 UTC.

It is 12:30 AM here and I think I would probably sleeping by then. If I 
am not available and others from the games SIG like Hans are not 
attending, you can just mail me any questions, you have.

Rahul



From katzj at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 18:59:48 2007
From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:59:48 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>
	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org> <46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
Message-ID: <1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 23:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Sounds like a start to me. Would this result in a torrent only release?

Yes

> Do I have to the approval of Fedora Board to call this "Fedora Games Spin"?

Given that no one from the board has weighed in on the discussion, I
would say not yet.

Jeremy



From mmcgrath at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 19:01:59 2007
From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:01:59 -0500
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>
	<46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>

Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 23:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>   
>> Sounds like a start to me. Would this result in a torrent only release?
>>     
>
> Yes
>
>   
>> Do I have to the approval of Fedora Board to call this "Fedora Games Spin"?
>>     
>
> Given that no one from the board has weighed in on the discussion, I
> would say not yet.
>
>   

Who approved these and how did they get there?


http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/torrents//Fedora-8-Test-2-Developer-Live-i686.torrent

http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/torrents//Fedora-8-Test-2-FEL-Live-i686.torrent

http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/torrents//Fedora-8-Test-2-KDE-Live-i686.torrent


    -Mike



From skvidal at fedoraproject.org  Thu Sep 27 19:14:27 2007
From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (seth vidal)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:14:27 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>
	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org> <46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>


On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 14:01 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 23:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >   
> >> Sounds like a start to me. Would this result in a torrent only release?
> >>     
> >
> > Yes
> >
> >   
> >> Do I have to the approval of Fedora Board to call this "Fedora Games Spin"?
> >>     
> >
> > Given that no one from the board has weighed in on the discussion, I
> > would say not yet.
> >
> >   

If we want to distribute the spins/deployment mechanism a bit and if we
want to make a distinction b/t respins and the official fedora spins
then maybe we could do:

spins.fedoraproject.org - it's own torrent tracker with an arse-load of
disk space.

Then we have a respin-admin group which can login to this machine and:
  1. make a spin with livecd/pungi based on a submitted config
  2. push them up to the spins tracker

Then we delegate the responsibility some and we also don't end up
drowning the official releases in other stuff.

in short new user experience is:

Looking for fedora: main site-> torrent.fedoraproject.org

Slightly more experienced new user:
 Looking for a specific fedora spin (once they understand what a spin
is) -> spins.fedoraproject.org

thoughts? Crack?
-sv





From katzj at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 19:24:25 2007
From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:24:25 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>
	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org> <46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1190921065.17693.58.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 14:01 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 23:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> Sounds like a start to me. Would this result in a torrent only release?
> > Yes
> >   
> >> Do I have to the approval of Fedora Board to call this "Fedora Games Spin"?
> >>     
> >
> > Given that no one from the board has weighed in on the discussion, I
> > would say not yet.
>
> Who approved these and how did they get there?

Board/FESCo as they were features for the release.  The end goal here,
at least from my point of view, is to get each specific spin not to be a
feature 

Jeremy



From mmcgrath at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 19:24:22 2007
From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:24:22 -0500
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>
	<46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>
	<1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>
Message-ID: <46FC0366.7070505@redhat.com>

seth vidal wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 14:01 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>   
>> Jeremy Katz wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 23:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Sounds like a start to me. Would this result in a torrent only release?
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Yes
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Do I have to the approval of Fedora Board to call this "Fedora Games Spin"?
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Given that no one from the board has weighed in on the discussion, I
>>> would say not yet.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>
> If we want to distribute the spins/deployment mechanism a bit and if we
> want to make a distinction b/t respins and the official fedora spins
> then maybe we could do:
>
> spins.fedoraproject.org - it's own torrent tracker with an arse-load of
> disk space.
>
> Then we have a respin-admin group which can login to this machine and:
>   1. make a spin with livecd/pungi based on a submitted config
>   2. push them up to the spins tracker
>
> Then we delegate the responsibility some and we also don't end up
> drowning the official releases in other stuff.
>
> in short new user experience is:
>
> Looking for fedora: main site-> torrent.fedoraproject.org
>
> Slightly more experienced new user:
>  Looking for a specific fedora spin (once they understand what a spin
> is) -> spins.fedoraproject.org
>   

Nope, very reasonable and fits in with a lot of the other stuff we're 
doing where we have the Official Fedora thing and then even more 
community/Sig thing like we're doing with secondary arch for example.  
+1 from me.

    -Mike



From katzj at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 19:25:47 2007
From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:25:47 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>
	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org> <46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>  <1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>
Message-ID: <1190921147.17693.60.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 15:14 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> If we want to distribute the spins/deployment mechanism a bit and if we
> want to make a distinction b/t respins and the official fedora spins
> then maybe we could do:
> 
> spins.fedoraproject.org - it's own torrent tracker with an arse-load of
> disk space.

Makes sense to me.

I suspect we'll still want a nice web page that's prettier than the
torrent interface, perhaps with screenshots and more descriptive text,
though, to describe the differences between what's there.  That can
easily be on the wiki, just requires doing it.
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spins ? :)

Jeremy



From mmcgrath at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 19:33:47 2007
From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:33:47 -0500
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <1190921065.17693.58.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>
	<46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>
	<1190921065.17693.58.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46FC059B.5040909@redhat.com>

Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 14:01 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>   
>> Jeremy Katz wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 23:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Sounds like a start to me. Would this result in a torrent only release?
>>>>         
>>> Yes
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Do I have to the approval of Fedora Board to call this "Fedora Games Spin"?
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Given that no one from the board has weighed in on the discussion, I
>>> would say not yet.
>>>       
>> Who approved these and how did they get there?
>>     
>
> Board/FESCo as they were features for the release.  The end goal here,
> at least from my point of view, is to get each specific spin not to be a
> feature 
>   

Would the kde spin be a torrent.fp.o spin or is it more of a spins.fp.o 
spin.

    -Mike



From skvidal at fedoraproject.org  Thu Sep 27 19:45:01 2007
From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (seth vidal)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:45:01 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FC059B.5040909@redhat.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>
	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org> <46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>
	<1190921065.17693.58.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FC059B.5040909@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1190922301.29395.8.camel@cutter>


On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 14:33 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 14:01 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >   
> >> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> >>     
> >>> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 23:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>>       
> >>>> Sounds like a start to me. Would this result in a torrent only release?
> >>>>         
> >>> Yes
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>>> Do I have to the approval of Fedora Board to call this "Fedora Games Spin"?
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>> Given that no one from the board has weighed in on the discussion, I
> >>> would say not yet.
> >>>       
> >> Who approved these and how did they get there?
> >>     
> >
> > Board/FESCo as they were features for the release.  The end goal here,
> > at least from my point of view, is to get each specific spin not to be a
> > feature 
> >   
> 
> Would the kde spin be a torrent.fp.o spin or is it more of a spins.fp.o 
> spin.

imo: kde, gnome, devel == torrent.fp.o

everything else - spins

but that's just me

-sv




From katzj at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 19:46:50 2007
From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:46:50 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FC059B.5040909@redhat.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>
	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org> <46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>
	<1190921065.17693.58.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FC059B.5040909@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1190922410.17693.64.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 14:33 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > Board/FESCo as they were features for the release.  The end goal here,
> > at least from my point of view, is to get each specific spin not to be a
> > feature 
>
> Would the kde spin be a torrent.fp.o spin or is it more of a spins.fp.o 
> spin.

For now at least, it'll probably remain a torrent.fp.org spin -- for F9,
we could revisit it, but we don't want to backtrack there from the F7
state and we don't have a lot of time.  For the new spins for this
release (FEL, Developer and Games), I'd love to see them as the pilots
for spins.fp.o.[1]

Jeremy

[1] And will help to ensure that they still happen, have some testing,
and be the initial pusher robot for them even.



From mmcgrath at redhat.com  Thu Sep 27 22:05:23 2007
From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:05:23 -0500
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FBF621.7080407@redhat.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>	<46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
	<46FBF621.7080407@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <46FC2923.5010309@redhat.com>

Mike McGrath wrote:
>>
> I think so yes.  I wouldn't mind talking to the rest of the 
> Infrastructure team at today's meeting if you could attend (and maybe 
> some other parties on the list) maybe we could just hammer it out 
> during the meeting.  irc.freenode.net - #fedora-meeting at 20:00 UTC.

Here's what we discussed at the meeting.  There will be a two part 
approval process.  1) the ks script / spin will be submitted to release 
engineering for approval.  If that's given the thumbs up, the release is 
sent to the board for trademark approval.  (Though the board could 
delegate this process to another party if they wish).

On the back end once we have a spin ready and approved, we'll work on 
getting a new site setup at http://spins.fedoraproject.org/ and a new 
FAS group with administrative rights to that site.  That group will 
primarily be the builders, copiers and torrent builders until wevisor or 
another automated process can be created.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/CustomSpins

Please change anything that is incorrect or add information that might 
be pertinent.  I tried to keep the page simple.

    -Mike



From herrold at owlriver.com  Fri Sep 28 02:13:42 2007
From: herrold at owlriver.com (R P Herrold)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:13:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <604aa7910709270613u4fa2facav6db840d558f24d26@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
	<604aa7910709270613u4fa2facav6db840d558f24d26@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.0.999.0709272155270.22643@new.owlriver.com>

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

> Here are the fundamental questions that I keep coming back to:
>
> Is it ethically wrong for me as a Fedora packager to take an 
> existing spec file without an explicit license from another 
> location as the base for the spec file I plan to submit for 
> review?  The pit of my stomach says no.

Your gut may need a check-up -- as noted in IRC to you several 
days ago, CLA 5 includes the representation:

5. You represent that each of your Contributions is your 
original creation (see section 7 for submissions on behalf of 
others). You represent that your Contribution submission(s) 
include complete details of any third-party license or other 
restriction (including, but not limited to, related copyright, 
patents and trademarks) of which you are personally aware and 
which are associated with any part of your Contribution.

That is: No hidden direct or contributory Copyright ('related 
copyright') infringements.  Trimmed Changelogs leaving a 
pointer (attribution) back to its prior source and making 
forked content in software bearing a FOSS license -- fine, ** 
so long as there is attribution **; silent lifts, fileing off 
all identifiers, and passing off code written by another as 
one's own -- nope.
 	<include IA_AL disclaimer>

There is probably not a general formal statutory prohibition 
against plagiarism, but I don't associate with theives and 
chop shop operators.  Here in Ohio, such behaviours would get 
a person, say, tossed out of Uni, and stripped of any awarded 
degree.
    	http://www.ohio.edu/outlook/media/BMIR.cfm

'There can never be a time or reason at an academic 
institution, such as our Ohio University, when plagiarism can 
be justified. Equally, there can not be any tolerance of the 
individuals who participate in this serious misconduct.'

My 5 x great grandfather and his brothers settled the land 
near, and provided the lumber for that school's first 
buildings; two buildings at its branch campus' bear my family 
name.  I am proud to see OU's response to the challenge which 
a discovered plagiarism brought.  I am not perfect, and none 
one human is; but I can strive toward it.

But maybe we do things differently, out here in 'fly over' 
country than, say, at Princeton

-- Russ Herrold



From kanarip at kanarip.com  Fri Sep 28 07:46:38 2007
From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:46:38 +0200
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>
	<46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>
	<1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>
Message-ID: <46FCB15E.5090905@kanarip.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

seth vidal wrote:
> If we want to distribute the spins/deployment mechanism a bit and if we
> want to make a distinction b/t respins and the official fedora spins
> then maybe we could do:
> 
> spins.fedoraproject.org - it's own torrent tracker with an arse-load of
> disk space.
> 
> Then we have a respin-admin group which can login to this machine and:
>   1. make a spin with livecd/pungi based on a submitted config

Does this include revisor?

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
- -kanarip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG/LFeKN6f2pNCvwgRAqswAJ46xjH48Duleayr/pDj2dtfscLqZACgvuCe
786aw6ub68zeRfhYtqpYgiM=
=A8Rw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From katzj at redhat.com  Fri Sep 28 13:20:00 2007
From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:20:00 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FCB15E.5090905@kanarip.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>
	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org> <46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com> <1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>
	<46FCB15E.5090905@kanarip.com>
Message-ID: <1190985600.11341.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 09:46 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: 
> seth vidal wrote:
> > If we want to distribute the spins/deployment mechanism a bit and if we
> > want to make a distinction b/t respins and the official fedora spins
> > then maybe we could do:
> > 
> > spins.fedoraproject.org - it's own torrent tracker with an arse-load of
> > disk space.
> > 
> > Then we have a respin-admin group which can login to this machine and:
> >   1. make a spin with livecd/pungi based on a submitted config
> 
> Does this include revisor?

The officially sanctioned tools for creating spins of Fedora at this
time are livecd-tools and pungi.  Both of these tools take as input a
kickstart config describing the spin they are creating.  How this config
is created doesn't matter, but to be branded as Fedora right now
requires the use of the official tools from my recollection of the
trademark policy and previous Board discussions.

Jeremy



From kanarip at kanarip.com  Fri Sep 28 13:38:57 2007
From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:38:57 +0200
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <1190985600.11341.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>
	<46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>
	<1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>	<46FCB15E.5090905@kanarip.com>
	<1190985600.11341.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46FD03F1.3060700@kanarip.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 09:46 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: 
>> seth vidal wrote:
>>> If we want to distribute the spins/deployment mechanism a bit and if we
>>> want to make a distinction b/t respins and the official fedora spins
>>> then maybe we could do:
>>>
>>> spins.fedoraproject.org - it's own torrent tracker with an arse-load of
>>> disk space.
>>>
>>> Then we have a respin-admin group which can login to this machine and:
>>>   1. make a spin with livecd/pungi based on a submitted config
>> Does this include revisor?
> 
> The officially sanctioned tools for creating spins of Fedora at this
> time are livecd-tools and pungi.  Both of these tools take as input a
> kickstart config describing the spin they are creating.  How this config
> is created doesn't matter, but to be branded as Fedora right now
> requires the use of the official tools from my recollection of the
> trademark policy and previous Board discussions.
> 
> Jeremy
> 

You're saying the board decided to push Revisor into the "Kadischi"-corner??

I'd love to hear what arguments were considered.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
- -kanarip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG/QPwKN6f2pNCvwgRAiZTAJ4wLA5y263Cy0h5vcX7WwKznPpC3ACfSsJv
gmKWC/vVYGF506TGTLN7iAk=
=E5iL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From jkeating at redhat.com  Fri Sep 28 09:42:39 2007
From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:42:39 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FD03F1.3060700@kanarip.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>
	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org> <46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com> <1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>
	<46FCB15E.5090905@kanarip.com>
	<1190985600.11341.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FD03F1.3060700@kanarip.com>
Message-ID: <20070928054239.5b9faa8b@redhat.com>

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:38:57 +0200
Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip at kanarip.com> wrote:

> You're saying the board decided to push Revisor into the
> "Kadischi"-corner??
> 
> I'd love to hear what arguments were considered.

Not the same situation at all.  However we have a set of tools that
Release Engineering uses to produce the Fedora distributions.  These
tools are where all development necessary for the release happens, and
often it is quite rapid.  We have these codebases to concern ourselves
with when addressing changes in the distribution or bugs in the compose
process.  When it comes to making other spins for Fedora, these are the
codebases we wish to be used to produce those spins.  How a config file
is generated doesn't really matter, so long as the file is valid.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070928/003edf4d/attachment.sig>

From kanarip at kanarip.com  Fri Sep 28 13:59:55 2007
From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:59:55 +0200
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <20070928054239.5b9faa8b@redhat.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>
	<46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>
	<1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>	<46FCB15E.5090905@kanarip.com>	<1190985600.11341.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FD03F1.3060700@kanarip.com>
	<20070928054239.5b9faa8b@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <46FD08DB.5050806@kanarip.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:38:57 +0200
> Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip at kanarip.com> wrote:
> 
>> You're saying the board decided to push Revisor into the
>> "Kadischi"-corner??
>>
>> I'd love to hear what arguments were considered.
> 
> Not the same situation at all.  However we have a set of tools that
> Release Engineering uses to produce the Fedora distributions.  These
> tools are where all development necessary for the release happens, and
> often it is quite rapid.  We have these codebases to concern ourselves
> with when addressing changes in the distribution or bugs in the compose
> process.  When it comes to making other spins for Fedora, these are the
> codebases we wish to be used to produce those spins.  How a config file
> is generated doesn't really matter, so long as the file is valid.
> 

What I'm reading is that all custom Fedora spins that are to be blessed
need to be composed by Release Engineering (or at least their tools),
because otherwise you (the ones that bless, build, test and help
distributing) wouldn't ever be able to reproduce whatever the initiator
of a custom spin had in mind when choosing another tool to initially
compose the spin with.

I'm also reading that you need development for the tools that are used
to compose custom spins need to live within the Release Engineering team
or close to it, to keep up with changes in the distribution or bugs in
the compose process, but I'm not reading why we (Revisor developers)
wouldn't be capable of doing exactly that.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
- -kanarip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG/QjaKN6f2pNCvwgRAtW/AKCbluhCABf5p14RrX6sGJaeXF/8NACeIhOk
ji0de01IPgTEWT0VHrya7w4=
=J2t1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From sundaram at fedoraproject.org  Fri Sep 28 14:04:24 2007
From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:34:24 +0530
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <1190985600.11341.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org>
	<46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>
	<1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>	<46FCB15E.5090905@kanarip.com>
	<1190985600.11341.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <46FD09E8.2060700@fedoraproject.org>

Jeremy Katz wrote:

> 
> The officially sanctioned tools for creating spins of Fedora at this
> time are livecd-tools and pungi.  Both of these tools take as input a
> kickstart config describing the spin they are creating.  How this config
> is created doesn't matter, but to be branded as Fedora right now
> requires the use of the official tools from my recollection of the
> trademark policy and previous Board discussions.

If both live cd tools and pungi can take kickstart files as input then 
has any thought been given on the possibility of merging them. At this 
point they look too similar to be separate tools to me and maybe you can 
share more code that way too.

Rahul



From jkeating at redhat.com  Fri Sep 28 10:17:36 2007
From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:17:36 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FD08DB.5050806@kanarip.com>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>
	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org> <46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com> <1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>
	<46FCB15E.5090905@kanarip.com>
	<1190985600.11341.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FD03F1.3060700@kanarip.com> <20070928054239.5b9faa8b@redhat.com>
	<46FD08DB.5050806@kanarip.com>
Message-ID: <20070928061736.36fcb294@redhat.com>

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:59:55 +0200
Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip at kanarip.com> wrote:

> What I'm reading is that all custom Fedora spins that are to be
> blessed need to be composed by Release Engineering (or at least their
> tools), because otherwise you (the ones that bless, build, test and
> help distributing) wouldn't ever be able to reproduce whatever the
> initiator of a custom spin had in mind when choosing another tool to
> initially compose the spin with.

Not reproduce, have confidence that what /is/ produced is the same
thing that would be produced should we do it, or that what is produced
will work in the same way that what we produce does.  That the same
codepaths are used, the only difference is configuration.

> 
> I'm also reading that you need development for the tools that are used
> to compose custom spins need to live within the Release Engineering
> team or close to it, to keep up with changes in the distribution or
> bugs in the compose process, but I'm not reading why we (Revisor
> developers) wouldn't be capable of doing exactly that.

Quite honestly because I have 0 confidence when my code paths of the
day aren't used at all by your tool.  I have no idea what generation of
code you've copied into your tool, nor how it's being used.  I have no
interest in spending however long it'll take to figure all that out
when at the end of the day, if the config file is sound, it should just
work with Fedora's official tools.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070928/761a0ea1/attachment.sig>

From jkeating at redhat.com  Fri Sep 28 10:19:52 2007
From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:19:52 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <46FD09E8.2060700@fedoraproject.org>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>
	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org> <46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com> <1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>
	<46FCB15E.5090905@kanarip.com>
	<1190985600.11341.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FD09E8.2060700@fedoraproject.org>
Message-ID: <20070928061952.1245496f@redhat.com>

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:34:24 +0530
Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> If both live cd tools and pungi can take kickstart files as input
> then has any thought been given on the possibility of merging them.
> At this point they look too similar to be separate tools to me and
> maybe you can share more code that way too.

That's something of a long term goal, but when you dig deep into it
they really are different things.  The common code that can be shared
is config file parsing (they both use pykickstart, so mission
accomplished somewhat), yum object creation, maybe some code sharing in
mkisofs calls for creating bootable isos out of directories, and that's
about it.  The crux of what these tools do is different enough that
mashing them together isn't necessarily the best of ideas.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070928/25b05651/attachment.sig>

From katzj at redhat.com  Fri Sep 28 14:34:04 2007
From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:34:04 -0400
Subject: Compose tools common use of kickstart configs (Was Re: Fedora
	Games Spin)
In-Reply-To: <46FD09E8.2060700@fedoraproject.org>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190908771.17693.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBD768.90004@redhat.com>
	<1190911238.17693.39.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBE68B.5090305@redhat.com>
	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org> <46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com> <1190920467.29395.6.camel@cutter>
	<46FCB15E.5090905@kanarip.com>
	<1190985600.11341.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FD09E8.2060700@fedoraproject.org>
Message-ID: <1190990044.11341.19.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 19:34 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > The officially sanctioned tools for creating spins of Fedora at this
> > time are livecd-tools and pungi.  Both of these tools take as input a
> > kickstart config describing the spin they are creating.  How this config
> > is created doesn't matter, but to be branded as Fedora right now
> > requires the use of the official tools from my recollection of the
> > trademark policy and previous Board discussions.
> 
> If both live cd tools and pungi can take kickstart files as input then 
> has any thought been given on the possibility of merging them. At this 
> point they look too similar to be separate tools to me and maybe you can 
> share more code that way too.

The guts of what they do are really quite different.  In a lot of ways,
livecd-creator is really more similar to anaconda than to pungi. 

But the fact that all three (pungi, livecd-creator and anaconda) use
kickstart configs is very very intentional.  The idea is that there is
one common config that can be used to describe an image regardless of
whether you deploy it by having a traditional tree + installing from it,
a live image, etc.  But that discussion is getting a bit off-topic for
here.  Reply-to: set accordingly

Jeremy



From jspaleta at gmail.com  Fri Sep 28 15:33:00 2007
From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:33:00 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.0.999.0709272155270.22643@new.owlriver.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
	<604aa7910709270613u4fa2facav6db840d558f24d26@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709272155270.22643@new.owlriver.com>
Message-ID: <604aa7910709280833j4240994bq75d72ee89fa17b0e@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/27/07, R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com> wrote:
> Your gut may need a check-up -- as noted in IRC to you several
> days ago, CLA 5 includes the representation:

Selectively cutting of my post like you have done isn't moving the
conversation forward.  Though I must admit, if I had such a proud
family history to tout, I'd make it a point to bring it up quite
frequently. Me, I've got generations and generations of Slavic
organized crime on one side and Carolinian pirateers on the other.
Based on my family history, everyone reading this should check to make
sure that I haven't picked their pockets, broken their kneecaps, and
then buried their family's best silver out on the outer banks
somewhere.  And when not being compelled by the unquenchable inherited
bloodlust flowing through my veins to do these sorts of things against
my will, I'm out kicking puppies for fun. It's a simple statement of
fact that my very existence is an affront to the patriotic nobility of
your bloodline.  But, you'll be glad to know that I am in therapy and
I'm learning to accept my inherently evil nature and learning to
cope.. day by day.

Did you fail to read the very next hypothetical question i posed
concerning my gut feeling on attribution?  I know my posts are long,
but it really does help if you read all of it.  I think you you read
way too much into the first hypothetical that gets clarified in the
second.  But for the sake of clarity,  I'll take a moment to be
explicit. I think regardless of what is technically required by the
copyright license applicable to individual spec files, 'we' should be
attributing the original location/source/person that our spec file is
based on.  The question is what is the best way to do it.

Am I to take your response that you would prefer Fedora to implement a
policy that uses an initial changelog entry to note spec file
heritage? When I asked exactly that question in IRC, I failed to
receive an answer, so to be sure, I'll ask again.  Is a comment in the
initial changelog entry at fedora package submission time the way you
would prefer to see attribution handled for re-worked spec files?

My concern with relying on changelogs to preserve information as to
origin of pilfered booty..arr..spec files is that changelogs will not
be protected for the life of the fedora project. To save space,
packages with exceeding long changelog histories may be pruned at some
point in the future.  So I'm not sure that the first changelog entry
is the the most appropriate place to encode attribution.

-jef"only one week until the fall curling season starts!!!"spasleta



From jspaleta at gmail.com  Fri Sep 28 15:44:44 2007
From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:44:44 -0400
Subject: Fedora Games Spin : Requesting Board Approval
In-Reply-To: <1190922301.29395.8.camel@cutter>
References: <46FBCEE1.6000401@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190913897.17693.52.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBEB6F.9050109@fedoraproject.org> <46FBEEF3.2010002@redhat.com>
	<46FBF1F5.5060207@fedoraproject.org>
	<1190919588.17693.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FBFE27.4010309@redhat.com>
	<1190921065.17693.58.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<46FC059B.5040909@redhat.com> <1190922301.29395.8.camel@cutter>
Message-ID: <604aa7910709280844l55e1c99dh63042cd7d8aed8d2@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/27/07, seth vidal <skvidal at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> imo: kde, gnome, devel == torrent.fp.o
>
> everything else - spins
>
> but that's just me

Basically I agree, with the caveat that the Board can choose for
propoganda purposes to hilight an additional spin at Fedora release
times by making that additional spin a member of the 'release set' at
torrent.fp.o.

-jef



From herrold at owlriver.com  Fri Sep 28 15:51:19 2007
From: herrold at owlriver.com (R P Herrold)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:51:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <604aa7910709280833j4240994bq75d72ee89fa17b0e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
	<604aa7910709270613u4fa2facav6db840d558f24d26@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709272155270.22643@new.owlriver.com>
	<604aa7910709280833j4240994bq75d72ee89fa17b0e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.0.999.0709281149180.22898@new.owlriver.com>

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

> On 9/27/07, R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com> wrote:
>> Your gut may need a check-up -- as noted in IRC to you several
>> days ago, CLA 5 includes the representation:
>
> Selectively cutting of my post like you have done isn't moving the
> conversation forward.  Though I must admit, if I had such a proud

no Jef -- as with most of your posts, I can only take wadeing 
through their cruft so long.  Life it soo short to deal with 
people who won't prioritize their thoughts.

-- Russ Herrold



From bob at bobjensen.com  Fri Sep 28 15:41:34 2007
From: bob at bobjensen.com (Robert 'Bob' Jensen)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:41:34 -0500
Subject: Fedora Unity releases updated Fedora 7 Re-Spins.
Message-ID: <46FD20AE.4020602@bobjensen.com>

The Fedora Unity Project is proud to announce the release of new ISO 
Re-Spins (DVD and CD Sets) of Fedora 7.  These Re-Spin ISOs are based on 
Fedora 7 and all updates released as of September 12th, 2007.  The ISO 
images are available for i386 and x86_64 architectures via jigdo 
starting Friday, September 28th, 2007.  We have included CD Image sets 
for those in the Fedora community that do not have DVD drives or burners 
available.

Fedora Unity has taken up the Re-Spin task to provide the community with 
the chance to install Fedora with recent updates already included. 
These updates might otherwise comprise more than 700MiB of downloads for 
a default install.  This is a community project, for and by the 
community.  You can contribute to the community by joining our test process.

If you are interested in helping with the testing or mirroring efforts, 
please contact the Fedora Unity team.  Contact information is available 
at http://fedoraunity.org/ or the #fedora-unity channel on the Freenode 
IRC Network (irc.freenode.net).

Go to http://spins.fedoraunity.org/ to get the bits!

To report bugs in the Re-Spins please use http://bugs.fedoraunity.org/

Fedora is a trademark of Red Hat, Inc.

Robert 'Bob' Jensen
Fedora Unity Founder
bob at fedoraunity.org



From tcallawa at redhat.com  Fri Sep 28 16:59:20 2007
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:59:20 -0400
Subject: permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.0.999.0709272155270.22643@new.owlriver.com>
References: <20070917142951.09287d9b@ghistelwchlohm.scrye.com>
	<46F9E444.9090807@leemhuis.info>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261003060.3232@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070926091445.7d71a7d6@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190818906.2982.48.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local>
	<1190823840.21739.82.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926124607.37c5a007@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<1190830695.21739.89.camel@erato.phig.org>
	<20070926135012.7c434634@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261507470.32507@dhcp243-160.rdu.redhat.com>
	<604aa7910709270613u4fa2facav6db840d558f24d26@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.LRH.0.999.0709272155270.22643@new.owlriver.com>
Message-ID: <1190998760.3553.51.camel@localhost.localdomain>


On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 22:13 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:

> That is: No hidden direct or contributory Copyright ('related 
> copyright') infringements.  Trimmed Changelogs leaving a 
> pointer (attribution) back to its prior source and making 
> forked content in software bearing a FOSS license -- fine, ** 
> so long as there is attribution **; silent lifts, fileing off 
> all identifiers, and passing off code written by another as 
> one's own -- nope.

In the event that you (or anyone) comes across a Fedora contribution
which has its copyright attribution removed, please let someone at
Fedora know the specifics (you can email me directly if you'd like, or
appropriate mailing lists, like this one).

As you've pointed out, our CLA explicitly forbids this.

However, I would like to point out that changelog entries on their own
are almost certainly not considered copyright, and parties interested in
ensuring proper copyright attribution for spec files (which may not even
be copyrightable, but I digress) should consider including a statement
similar to:

     Copyright (C) 2007 John Doe <jdoe at rpm7.org>

By no means am I advocating the stripping of changelog entries as part
of the attempt to obscure/remove the origination of the spec file,
however, in the course of the lifecycle of an RPM package, it is not
unreasonable to assume that older changelog entries may be deleted or
archived outside of the spec file.

Or, to put it simply:

If you're the author of a spec file, and you think the spec file
constitutes a copyrightable work under the laws of your immediate
locale, then you should include a copyright attribution statement in
your spec file. Anyone in Fedora caught intentionally removing copyright
attributions will be severely punished.

~spot

*****
Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
explained by stupidity" 



From mmcgrath at redhat.com  Fri Sep 28 17:12:25 2007
From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:12:25 -0500
Subject: Fedora Unity releases updated Fedora 7 Re-Spins.
In-Reply-To: <46FD20AE.4020602@bobjensen.com>
References: <46FD20AE.4020602@bobjensen.com>
Message-ID: <46FD35F9.3060303@redhat.com>

Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
>
> Go to http://spins.fedoraunity.org/ to get the bits!
>
> To report bugs in the Re-Spins please use http://bugs.fedoraunity.org/

Is there a legal reason why we can't link to this on our website / wiki 
somewhere?

    -Mike



From notting at redhat.com  Fri Sep 28 17:43:53 2007
From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:43:53 -0400
Subject: Fedora Unity releases updated Fedora 7 Re-Spins.
In-Reply-To: <46FD35F9.3060303@redhat.com>
References: <46FD20AE.4020602@bobjensen.com> <46FD35F9.3060303@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20070928174353.GB25794@nostromo.devel.redhat.com>

Mike McGrath (mmcgrath at redhat.com) said: 
> Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
>>
>> Go to http://spins.fedoraunity.org/ to get the bits!
>>
>> To report bugs in the Re-Spins please use http://bugs.fedoraunity.org/
>
> Is there a legal reason why we can't link to this on our website / wiki 
> somewhere?

Not that I know of.

Bill